Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Outdoor Activity Centres

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement regarding the setting up of an accreditation and inspection scheme for outdoor activity centres.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The Activity Centre Advisory Committee has now employed consultants to draw up and pilot guidelines for individual activities; those and future inspection arrangements will be considered further by the ACAC at its next meeting in September.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that this summer hundreds of thousands of children will go to outdoor activity centres and undertake potentially hazardous activities? Although I welcome the voluntary accreditation scheme and the limited inspection announced earlier this year as a partial solution, does the Minister share my concern that, because of the voluntary nature of the scheme, cowboy centres, working well below safety levels, will continue to put children's lives at risk?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and of course we are all concerned about that. We look forward to the ACAC's recommendations on that and other points in September.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The Minister will be aware that the Scout Association meets the standards set down by the British Canoe Union—and, indeed, standards higher than those—not only for canoeing but for other adventure activities that the association offers to young people. While giving careful consideration to standards, will my hon. Friend make absolutely sure that we do not strangle adventure activities for young people with red tape?

Mr. Sproat: We shall maintain a wise balance.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that he would be applying some common sense that everyone involved in schools and the youth movement would applaud if, ahead of any report from the advisory committee, he announced that a statutory scheme would be introduced? That would give schools and clubs the confidence to believe that outdoor activity centres validated by such a scheme would be up to standard and safe.

Mr. Sproat: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The ACAC is looking at the possibilities of a voluntary accreditation scheme.

Sports Clubs (Isle of Wight)

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the clubs and facilities on the Isle of Wight which have received grants from the Sports Council since 1987.

Mr. Sproat: The Sports Council has awarded grants and loans totalling £260,557 to 23 clubs, facilities and organisations on the Isle of Wight since 1987–88. I will arrange for a list of recipients to be placed in the Official Report.

Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Isle of Wight, the first unitary authority in England, provides an ideal opportunity to enhance all the sporting facilities throughout the island for the benefit of young and old alike? Will he take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the Foundation for Sport and the Arts on its extraordinary generosity to sports clubs on the island and to sportsmen and sportswomen?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which has given more than £500,000 to the island. That is extremely welcome. I also agree with my hon. Friend's other remarks.

Mr. Barnes: Future grants for the Isle of Wight will come from the new Sports Council. On Friday, the Minister said that the six independent members of that council would be appointed by the Government, but would be independent of them. How will he work that trick?

Mr. Sproat: It is not a trick; it is a simple, straightforward matter. The independent members of the council will be independent of the Government in any tactical decisions that they may make. They will also, and importantly, be independent of other vested sports interests which legitimately put their views—for instance, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the British Olympic Association. That is the sense of the term "independent" in that context.

The following is the information:

Sports Council grants and loans awarded to clubs, facilities and organisations on the Isle of Wight for financial years 1987–88 to 1994–95


Organisation
Capital £
Revenue £


1987–88


Isle of Wight Cricket Association
1,000



East Cowes Victoria Athletic Club
5,000



Body Tech
—
200


Isle of Wight Sports Centre
—
355


Isle of Wight Cricket Association
—
2,500


1988–89


Isle of Wight Sport and Recreation Council
—
199


Isle of Wight Youth and Community Service
—
100


1989–90


Nil




1990–91


West Wight Swimming Pool Trust Ltd.
110,000



Medina borough council
—
18,000


Isle of Wight Sports Council
—
3,000

Organisation
Capital £
Revenue £


1991–92


Cowes Sports Football Club
110,000



Freshwater Bay Golf Club
14,000



Medina borough council
—
2,167


Hampshire and Isle of Wight LTA
—
1,700


1992–93


Isle of Wight county council
—
1,686


Hampshire and Isle of Wight LTA
—
5,500


Hampshire and Isle of Wight Football Association
—
4,150


1993–94


Isle of Wight county council
—
6,000


Isle of Wight County Cricket Association
—
3,000


1994–95


Ryde Sports Club
100,000



Isle of Wight Table Tennis Centre
75,000



Isle of Wight county council
—
5,000


Isle of Wight County Cricket Association
—
2,000




£


Capital total
=
205,000


Revenue total
=
55,557


Grand total
=
260,557


1Loan.

Deregulation

Mrs. Browning: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on deregulation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sproat: My Department takes a keen interest in the impact of regulation, from whatever source, on the business sectors in which we have a policy interest. We seek to deregulate when it can be wisely done.

Mrs. Browning: May I urge my hon. Friend to hasten any measures in the pipeline and to receive with an open mind representations made by those associated with tourism, which is extremely important in my constituency of Tiverton in Devon? Those associated with tourism and particularly small businesses feel that the burden of regulations still lies heavily on their shoulders.

Mr. Sproat: Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the great persistence with which she follows the interests of the tourist elements in her constituency. My Department identified 91 regulations which impact damagingly on the tourist industry. We are pursuing those with each of the relevant Departments.

Ms Mowlam: Although the Minister is not responsible for the regulation of newspaper pricing, he has regulatory responsibility for the standards of news and opinion throughout the United Kingdom. Given his Department's lead role in the Government's cross-media review, what will he have left to review if Murdoch's News Corporation succeeds in pushing some of the quality national and regional newspapers out of the market?

Mr. Sproat: We shall continue to review those and all the other newspapers and aspects of the media that are left.

Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the depth of feeling of hoteliers in my constituency about excessive regulation? Will he take the opportunity to discuss those matters with the Eastbourne Hotels Association during his forthcoming and much expected visit to Eastbourne?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I look forward to my trip to Eastbourne. Much of the evidence that has helped us so much in our investigation has come from the hoteliers of Eastbourne and I look forward to renewing my acquaintance with them.

Sports Council

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with other Departments about the restructuring of the Sports Council.

Mr. Sproat: I have consulted those Departments on whose interests the review of the Sports Council touches. As the hon. Member will know, the Government announced their proposals for the future of the Sports Council on 8 July.

Mr. Dowd: Further to the statement on 8 July, what did the Minister mean by the intention for the new Sports Council to withdraw from mass and formal participation and leisure activities? Will he explain the flagrant contradiction in the role of sport as outlined by the Secretary of State for Health in the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation"?

Mr. Sproat: There is no contradistinction between what the two Departments say. I want to ensure that the Sports Council concentrates on sport. It has only some £49 million a year to spend on this, as opposed to the £1.25 billion that local authorities have. I want local authorities to concentrate on recreation and leisure and the Sports Council to concentrate on performance and excellence.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome the Minister's proposals on the Sports Council, particularly giving the United Kingdom Sports Council a strategic role for a lead sport, but does he agree that local authorities and regional sports councils have a particularly important role to play in providing sports facilities for younger people?

Mr. Sproat: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will have noticed that I am asking the ministerial nominees in future to attach themselves more closely to the Sports Council in the regions, and I look forward to receiving much more direct advice from the ministerial nominees in future.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I welcome in general the announcement made by the Minister last Friday, when I was unavoidably absent? I particularly welcome the fact that professional sport is to be properly represented on the Sports Council, recognising that the distinction between amateur and professional is increasingly regarded as outdated. But where will responsibility for fighting the battle against drugs in sport rest? What importance does the Minister's Department attach to the continuation of the remarkably good work that has been done in the past in that respect by the existing Sports Council?

Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind welcome in general and for his comment on professional sport in particular. It is extremely important that members of regional sports councils and of the Great


Britain Sports Council, such as Mr. Trevor Brooking, will be there not just as outstanding individuals but as representatives of professional sport.
As far as drugs are concerned, that is one of the first things that the new United Kingdom Sports Council will be looking at. We attach great importance to it. Our attitude to drugs must be seen to be the same throughout the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Pendry: Further to the original question, is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State said only last year that it was his aim to put the extension of individual access to heritage, culture and sport firmly at the top of his agenda? How can the Minister square that objective with a withdrawal from the promotion of mass participation in sport? To achieve his boss's objective, will he agree to a longer period of consultation than the 70-odd that days he is allowing, after which he might see what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at and agree with him?

Mr. Sproat: No. The initial consultation that I proposed on Friday will be until 30 September; thereafter, we shall consider all the points made within that period. As for mass participation, of course we want to see as many people who wish to play sport and games playing them, but some aspects of that are better done by local authorities and some are better promoted by the Sports Council. We seek to achieve a sensible balance.

Sport (Business Sponsorship)

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the value of business sponsorship of sport in the latest period for which information is available.

Mr. Sproat: The total value of commercial sponsorship of sport in the United Kingdom in 1993 was estimated to be approximately £250 million.

Mr. Colvin: I am sure that the House would agree that the introduction of the Sportsmatch sponsorship scheme for sport will be welcome, even if it is only half as successful as the business sponsor incentive scheme for the arts. Additional funding can be made available for improvements and safety features at sports grounds through the Football Trust. What plans do Her Majesty's Government have for extending the scope of the trust to include non-league football, rugby union, rugby league and cricket?

Mr. Sproat: With regard to Sportsmatch, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, Sportsmatch has been responsible for pumping some £10 million extra into grass roots sports since it was set up in November 1992. As for widening the Football Trust's activities, clearly it is extremely important that we should try to spread the money and ensure that safety at sports grounds, which could apply to games such as rugby league, for instance, is as good as it is at football grounds. We are currently looking at ways in which to do just that.

Mr. Flynn: What is the Minister's reaction to the plea from the Heritage Select Committee that advertising for tobacco should be banned? Does he not think it damaging for young children to see business sponsorship of tobacco displayed all over the uniforms and kits of sportsmen? Would it not be better to allow business sponsorship of

Members of Parliament to be displayed on our suits when we speak here so that the country can know who is filling the pockets of Members and so that the mother of Parliaments does not an the international reputation as the whore of Parliaments?

Mr. Sproat: On the first point, I know roughly what the Select Committee said. I shall be studying the report over the coming few weeks and I shall be making an official response in due course.

Mr. Jessel: When my hon. Friend studies the Select Committee report, will he pay particular attention to the point that sports sponsorship by tobacco companies tends to encourage young, impressionable and gullible people to identify healthy and glamorous activities such as sport and the hero figures in it with a habit that is likely to be lethal to some 8 or 9 per cent. of them, on present trends?

Mr. Sproat: As I said in reply to the last supplementary question, these matters are well rehearsed in the Select Committee's report, and I look forward to examining them in detail. My hon. Friend will be aware that the current voluntary agreement provides that there shall be no sponsorship by tobacco companies of events that are attended by a majority of persons under the age of 18.

Channel 4

Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the future funding of Channel 4; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I have received letters from the chairman of Channel 4, the chairman of the ITV Association, two of the chairmen of ITV companies, more than 50 letters from hon. Members on behalf of independent programme production companies, and some letters directly from independent programme producers. On 21 June, I met the chairman and chief executive of Channel 4 and listened to their views. I shall consider all those views and those of other organisations with an interest.

Ms Jackson: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but he did not mention a statement on the future funding of Channel 4. Will he assure the House and the country that the path of privatisation will not be pursued in that area and that the element of public service broadcasting which is integral to Channel 4 will be of overriding importance and will be protected, whatever form of future funding is eventually reached?

Mr. Brooke: The Government considered the issue of the privatisation of Channel 4 in 1989, but decided against it, and we have seen no reason to change our mind since. The White Paper that the Government issued last Wednesday was an index of the Government's support for public sector broadcasting.

Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend consider—or perhaps recall—that most Conservative Members believe Channel 4 to be a most excellent channel, whose independence must be maintained? One of the problems that the channel faces is that it has a funding agreement which is out of date and does not take into account the success that it has subsequently achieved. Will my right


hon. Friend give assurances that that will be looked at carefully because we want a well-funded, independent Channel 4 to continue?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is almost as eloquent as Sir Michael Bishop and Michael Grade were when they came to see me on 21 June—and that is a high compliment. I said in response to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that I would consider the views that I had heard, and those of other organisations with an interest. That I will do.

Arts (Disabled People)

Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had recently with organisations for the disabled about support for the arts.

Mr. Sproat: My Department is in regular contact with organisations representing the interests of disabled people in the arts sector; among them, I have just announced increased funding of £43,000 to the ADAPT trust for this year. The Arts Council and the regional arts boards together spend more than £1.5 million on arts and disability each year.

Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that the Arts Council disability unit is due to be scrapped? Following the demise of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, this is another slap in the face for disabled people. The unit cost £50,000 to run. Will he consider making representations to the Arts Council, or providing extra resources for the council, to force it into keeping the unit going?

Mr. Sproat: That is, of course, a decision for the Arts Council, but I think that the hon. Lady has got it wrong. The Arts Council used to have a special unit which did nothing but look at the needs of disabled persons, of women and of ethnic minorities. It decided to scrap the unit and to share the responsibility for safeguarding those interests right across the council's work. That was the Arts Council's decision, but it seemed sensible to me.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that words come cheap, and that the important point is that the Government have more than trebled provision for the disabled in real terms? We can take the credit for that, because we have done what the Labour party failed to do.

Mr. Sproat: Yes. As so often, my hon. Friend is exactly right.

Radio 4

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received during his review of the BBC charter regarding maintaining Radio 4 on the long-wave network.

Mr. Brooke: More than 1,700 since October 1992, but most of them were not linked to the BBC's future after 1996.

Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the variability of the Radio 4 FM frequency and how easily it can be interrupted? If I open my fridge door at home, reception ceases altogether. With that in mind, does he agree that more listeners would be better served if the usual Radio 4 programmes were broadcast on long wave and extended sports programmes on the FM frequency?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me outline notice of the subject that she wished to raise and I am sorry that she has difficulties receiving Radio 4 on FM, not least because of her fridge door. FM reception depends largely on having a line of sight from the receiving aerial to the transmitter. Rooftop antennae are recommended wherever possible, but I recognise that many listeners prefer to use portable receivers, even though reception is generally poorer on such equipment.
The BBC continues to build new FM transmitters to improve reception of its services. The building programme is subject to available resources and competing engineering priorities. However, the shortage of frequencies and the geography of the local terrain do not make it easy to read all areas easily. Although my hon. Friend criticises the BBC for scheduling extended sports coverage and, in particular, "Test Match Special" on Radio 4 long wave, it is for the BBC to decide what to broadcast on the frequencies available to it.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he quite enjoys answering questions of that kind about the regulatory framework for the BBC because it is a proper, democratic regulation about which we can ask questions in Parliament? Does he look forward, as I do, to the day when the quality and variety of programming on satellite and cable will be similarly subject to a sensible, if arm's-length, regulatory framework by the democratic process to ensure proper quality of programmes?

Mr. Brooke: The simplest answer is that I always enjoy answering questions from the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the subject that he raises is currently under review.

Mr. Cormack: Is it not a fair bet that the contents of the fridge belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) would frequently be better than the contents of radio programmes?

Mr. Brooke: I am diffident about saying this, but I am not wholly familiar with the contents of my hon. Friend's fridge.

Mr. Corbett: Is the Secretary of State aware that the seemingly random tinkering with programmes between Radio 4 FM and long wave and Radio 5 Live confuses listeners and has lessened live coverage of what goes on in this place? Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the chairman and governors of the BBC of the corporation's duty to broadcast a day-by-day impartial account of events here? Does he agree that the fact that newspaper reporting of Parliament has drastically lessened makes as-it-happens coverage all the more important?

Mr. Brooke: As we indicated in the White Paper last week, we believe that the BBC should provide published objectives for each of its radio services and that the character of its services should not be changed without giving audiences an opportunity to comment on the proposals. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the potential confusion that can arise.

British Broadcasting Corporation

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish his White Paper on the future of the BBC.

Mr. Brooke: I published a White Paper on 6 July.

Mr. Coombs: I thank my right hon. Friend for his pre-emptive strike on Wednesday against my question. I warmly welcome the White Paper, as I believe that most people have done since it was published. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC will have an increasingly difficult position to maintain as a broadcasting corporation in an increasingly narrow casting world? What does he see as his Department's role in encouraging and helping the BBC to maintain its pre-eminent position in world television and radio?

Mr. Brooke: The White Paper was certainly a response to the world in which the BBC will find itself, domestically as well as internationally. The best contribution that any Government can make to the BBC is to reinforce its self-confidence, and that is what we did last Wednesday.

Mr. Sheldon: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what he did last Wednesday. Will he pay tribute to Maramaduke Hussey and Lord Barnett, who, over a long period, resisted the attempts by the then Prime Minister to disband the real and essential work of the BBC and who, by playing the role of Sheherazade as they did, kept the conversation and discussion going until such time as the right hon. Gentleman was able to produce the results that he did last Wednesday?

Mr. Brooke: Some of what the right hon. Gentleman said probably belongs more to the historians than either to him or to me. I pay tribute to the present chairman and the former deputy chairman for the manner in which they managed the changes that have occurred in the BBC. While, perfectly properly, compliments have been paid to the director-general in the aftermath of the White Paper, I think that similar compliments might be paid to the govenors.

Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the latest figures from the business sponsorship incentive scheme.

Mr. Sproat: The business sponsorship incentive scheme is continuing to be remarkably successful in encouraging businesses to sponsor the arts. Since its inception in October 1984, the scheme has attracted almost £74 million in new money for the arts.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent answer. Can the principles that are being applied for Sportsmatch to get finances also be used for heritage projects? I have in mind the preservation of steam railways, such as that at Swanage, or tall ships, such as the 70 that will come out of Weymouth on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. Many charities spend a great deal of money keeping those in working order for, in particular, young and disabled people.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. He could play his part in encouraging the Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts to set up more offices around the country so as to encourage more businesses to participate. I am pleased that ABSA recently opened a new office in Birmingham. It also opened a new office in Halifax in June 1992, which has led to the amount of business sponsorship for the arts since then rising by no less than 68 per cent.

Mr. Pike: The Minister will be aware that preserving industrial heritage is extremely expensive, so what he has just said is welcome. Will he make it his task to encourage business to support that sort of heritage, because many of the museums will go out of business if they cannot find sufficient resources to survive?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I know that he will welcome the fact that the Department played some part in ensuring that an additional £300,000 was allocated to the Yorkshire mining museum the other day, which will help to keep that important part of Britain's industrial heritage in being.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement and the fact that his Department will find £4.8 million this year for that scheme, which is cash-limited. Will he give sympathetic consideration to the problems of the Cirencester festival, about which I have corresponded with my hon. Friend, which does have business sponsorship, but, because the scheme is cash-limited, is not eligible for money from it this year?

Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We do everything possible to keep raising the funding, which currently stands at £4.8 million. As he knows, we increased it by 10 per cent. last time. If he cares to write to me, I will certainly look again at the details of the scheme that he mentioned.

Opera Companies

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the total number of opera performances and the total attendances for companies supported by the Arts Council in 1983–84 and 1993–94.

Mr. Brooke: In 1983–84, the total number of performances and the total attendances for the major opera companies supported by the Arts Council were 611 and 875,853 respectively. In 1993–94, those figures rose to 690 performances and 904,069 attendances.

Mr. Gunnell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, despite the loss of opera companies over the past decade, those increases in figures show the strength of our resident opera companies? Are not the restrictions on Arts Council funding a threat to their quality? Will he ensure that if the Government go ahead in getting rid of some of the authorities that support opera companies, the Department will put a scheme in place to ensure that funds are available?

Mr. Brooke: My answer referred to major companies. There has been a burgeoning of opera in the middle scale, with 50 companies now in existence. Together with small-scale organisations such as Pimlico Opera, those opera companies are reaching new audiences in a large number of venues that are unable to host larger-scale productions.
The comparable funding for the other companies from the Arts Council—I am including Scotland and Wales—was £16.5 million in 1983–84 and more than £38 million in 1994–95. Therefore, although funding decisions are for the Arts Council, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there has been a steady increase in public funding.

Mr. Rowe: Is not it an extraordinary tribute to the astonishing increase in the quality of orchestral music and


operatic singers music that so many people are now interested in opera? Given that solid base, will my right hon. Friend ensure that producers of publicly supported operas will use as much ingenuity in staging economical productions as they do when seeking subsidies?

Mr. Brooke: My experience of companies funded by the Arts Council is that they concentrate on doing that which my hon. Friend suggested across the whole range of arts, and that the practice is not confined to opera.

Sport (Business Sponsorship)

Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the Sportsmatch scheme to promote business sponsorship of sport.

Mr. Sproat: I receive a number of letters from hon. Members and others regarding individual applications for Sportsmatch awards, but have not received any other representations recently.

Mr. Lord: Recently, I had the honour to perform the turf-cutting ceremony for new squash courts in the village of Debenham in Suffolk. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the scheme, which is bringing enthusiasm to businesses and sports in all areas but particularly to rural areas such as my constituency, which badly need sports facilities. Will my hon. Friend give the scheme maximum publicity?

Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is a splendid scheme, and it has been responsible for putting an extra £10 million into grass roots sports. It does so at minimum overheads of 10 per cent., which is something that other organisations might consider. I will certainly do as my hon. Friend suggests.

National Lottery

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he now expects the first tickets for the national lottery to be sold.

Mr. Brooke: The Director-General of the National Lottery announced on 25 May that he had selected the Camelot Group plc to run the national lottery. I understand that Camelot will launch the national lottery with an on-line lotto game in November 1994. The date when tickets will go on sale has not been decided.

Mr. O'Hara: Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to a recent report in the Financial Times, part of the Camelot consortium, named G-Tech, is considering using the UK lottery network in a bid for a national benefits distribution contract? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), the Director-General of Oflot confessed that he had not known of that interest of G-Tech until he read about it in the press? Will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking now that he will not allow Camelot or any part of it to make such use of the UK lottery network?

Mr. Brooke: That question is probably as much for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services as for me. I did see the report, and it is a subject on which I have already asked questions.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the operation of the national lottery will have an effect on pools companies? Will he carefully examine ways in which we could level up the marketing activities of pools companies with those of the national lottery, bearing in mind the excellent work done by the Football Trust? Will my right hon. Friend investigate that matter, so that a decision on advertising and other factors will be based on a level playing field?

Mr. Brooke: The levelling up that my hon. Friend described was widely discussed when the National Lottery etc. Bill went through the House, and a series of concessions were made to pools companies at that stage—sufficient to secure all-party support when the Bill received its Third Reading. The matter has already been widely considered, but I notice that it has re-emerged.

Regional Film Production

Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new proposals he has to encourage television and film productions in the regions.

Mr. Brooke: Following the round of consultations that I held last year with different sectors of the film industry, I am considering a number of proposals aimed at encouraging investment in British film production. I will announce the Government's conclusions in due course. However, it is for individual film and television producers to decide where they wish to make their films or programmes, and it would be inappropriate for the Government to offer financial or other inducements favouring one region over another.

Ms Quin: In his consultations, did the Secretary of State come to realise the concern that exists in the regions and in Britain as a whole about the way in which we seem to be losing out, in film opportunities, to other parts of Europe? For example, Scotland lost a film to Ireland and a film about Cornwall was shot in North Rhine-Westphalia because of German support for the film industry. Does the Minister believe that there should be roughly equal terms for film-making throughout Europe?

Mr. Brooke: I am aware of a number of the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned. I am glad to say that last year the number of films made in this country increased and the papers this very weekend contained news of the massive recruitment of extras in the Fort William area to make one film and in Barmouth, Wales for yet another forthcoming production. I agree with the hon. Lady, however, that, just as we have no interest in asserting one region over another within the United Kingdom, it would be desirable if that did not happen in Europe either.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Archbishops' Commission

Dr. Spink: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the Church Commissioners' response to the recommendations of the Archbishops' Commission on the organisation of the Church of England.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Turnbull Commission is not expected to report before summer 1995. The Church Commissioners stand ready, with an open mind, to respond to its recommendations.

Dr. Spink: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he welcome the clarification by Prince Charles, reported in The Times today, that he would not wish to change the coronation oath and that he supports the establishment of the Church of England? In view of the General Synod's vote in York today on the disestablishment of that Church, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be regrettable if the Church were seen to be trying to distance itself from moral issues, society and even politics at this time when we need it so much?

Mr. Alison: Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted to hear of the positive endorsement by the Prince of Wales of establishment for the Church of England. I very much hope that that Church, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is debating those issues in York at its General Synod, will endorse the attitude of the Prince of Wales and will underline and support the existing close and constructive links between Church and state, which bring appreciable benefits, both spiritual and material, to both communities.

Funeral Fees

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the future level of clergy fees for funerals and their relationship to the Church Commissioners' contribution to the overall stipend.

Mr. Alison: The commissioners have prepared a draft parochial fees order, to take effect from 1 January 1995, which will be presented to the General Synod today and which, it is believed, will result in fees representing a more realistic contribution to the costs of the Church. Fees payable to the clergy fund about 7 per cent. of the total stipend bill, but that bears no direct relationship to the annual sums that the commissioners make available towards stipends.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has not told the House the position, which is that the proposal means that fees for funerals are likely to increase by three times, from £50 to £150, which is nothing short of appalling for many poor parishioners. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear to the Church that it is not right that, because of the Church Commissioners' mistakes, the poorest in society should be charged more to bury their dead?

Mr. Alison: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's figures. Fees are due to increase, on average, by 28 per cent. The total fee for a funeral service is set to rise from £43 to £55. The fee for a burial in a churchyard is significantly less than that for a burial in a local authority cemetery.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that clergymen will always take into account the needs of poor people, whether in regard to fees for funerals or to anything else? Will he also ensure that clergymen conducting funerals, especially on a conveyor basis at

crematoriums, know the sex of the person who is being buried and take more care to ensure that the service is genuinely spiritual, which is what it is intended to be, but so often is not?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has presented a horrific scenario involving "conveyor belts" at crematoriums. If he is prepared to carry out a personal survey of crematoriums throughout the metropolis and let me have a report, I shall be glad to arrange for a proper evaluation of the survey.

Ordination Of Women

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what cost has been incurred so far and what is the estimated cost 20 years hence of the compensation measures following the ordination of women Measures.

Mr. Alison: The total cost of the financial provision over the next 10 years for the number of clergy expected to have resigned by the end of this month—July 1994—is estimated to be £7.5 million. We are unable to estimate the total cost over 20 years, as that will depend on how many clergy have resigned by the year 2004.

Mr. Field: Will the £7.5 million—if that figure is accurate—be paid by the commissioners or by individual dioceses?

Mr. Alison: That will depend on the extent to which it becomes a real cost. The sums expended will naturally result in sums being saved, because stipends will no longer be payable to those who have resigned. We shall have to make a precise assessment of the net position, but the contribution made by the Church Commissioners to all the dioceses is viewed as a global entity. I think that it would be impossible to specify the net figure that we are discussing within that entity.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Public Record Office

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the Government's policy concerning charging for access to the Public Record Office.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Public Record Office recently completed its report on its services and charges. The Lord Chancellor will make a decision about the report's recommendations in the autumn, when he has considered the views of his advisory council on public records.

Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend place in the Library a copy of the survey of users of the Public Record Office, so that it is available to right hon. and hon. Members? Will he and the Lord Chancellor continue to bear in mind the fact that many scholars and other users of the public records have low incomes, and should not be inconvenienced by the prospect of a high charge?

Mr. Taylor: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that copies of the main report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Judicial Independence

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the independence of the judiciary.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental constitutional principle. The Lord Chancellor is concerned at all times to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and the judicial process.

Mr. Hutton: How can that statement be reconciled with the treatment earlier this year of Mr. Justice Wood, who was effectively forced to resign from the Bench after the Lord Chancellor's Department attempted to interfere directly with the operation of the employment appeals tribunal? Does not that prove—at least in respect of that case—that the Government's commitment to the independence of the judiciary is something of a sham?

Mr. Taylor: Certainly not. The Lord Chancellor was endeavouring to ensure that procedures put in place by this honourable House were followed by the tribunal in England and in Wales, as well as in Scotland. The Lord Chancellor made a full statement about the matter during a debate in the other place on 27 April; I recommend the Hansard report of that debate.

Mr. Tracey: I am sure that every hon. Member strongly supports the independence of the judiciary. Will my hon. Friend say something about arranging more conferences on sentencing, especially for magistrates, so that magistrates courts do not reach so many of the disparate decisions that throw the whole Bench into confusion and disrespect?

Mr. Taylor: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Lord Chancellor's Department gives judicial training the highest priority, as does the Lord Chancellor himself. We strongly support and encourage the work of the Judicial Studies Board, and of magistrates benches which arrange training for themselves.

Mr. Boateng: If the Minister and the Lord Chancellor are so concerned about judicial independence, will he tell the House why he proposes, in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, to enable industrial tribunals and social security tribunals to be put into the private sector? What possible benefit will that bring to the public? How can spending more than £500,000 in so doing be justified, and what safeguards will then exist for the independence of the judiciary?

Mr. Taylor: The technical scope of the legislation is narrow in respect of judicial functions. The Government have already amended it to acknowledge the constitutional position of judicial independence and they remain adamant that they will do nothing, whether in the context of the Bill or otherwise, that might erode the independence or probity of the judicial process.

Civil Litigation

Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the cost of civil litigation.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor is committed to reducing the cost of civil litigation, both to the parties involved and to the taxpayer. That commitment

is demonstrated by the on-going implementation of the civil justice review and the establishment of Lord Woolf s review.

Mr. Ottaway: I welcome that reply, particularly as it is only a few weeks since the Master of the Rolls described the high cost of civil litigation as a cancer at the heart of the British judicial system. Is not the best way to reduce that high cost to lower lawyers' fees? To that extent, should not we generate a real market in lawyers' fees by insisting that they publish their fees? Would not it be in the public interest for large partnerships, which turn over hundreds of millions of pounds a year, to publish their accounts?

Mr. Taylor: Legal fees are a major factor in the high cost of litigation. My hon. Friend's proposal about publishing accounts is extremely interesting and the Law Society would find it interesting too, coming as it does from my hon. Friend, with all his commercial legal experience.

Legal Aid

Mr. Steen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the legal aid programme in civil cases.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor's Department is conducting a fundamental review of expenditure. That will cover expenditure in publicly funded legal services.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that the House is greatly concerned about the number of people who clearly should not receive legal aid under the civil list, as they have no right to do so, but who receive large sums of taxpayers' money to pursue or defend actions? Will the Minister ensure that an immediate review is conducted into the number of people receiving legal aid for civil cases when they should not be doing so? The public purse should not be paying for it.

Mr. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor's Department is conducting a fundamental review, which will cover the areas to which my hon. Friend refers. The issues that he raises are of great importance. As Members of Parliament, we all have a part to play in encouraging our constituents to complain if they think that there is a case where legal aid has been unmerited. Anyone can complain to the Legal Aid Board, and I would encourage people to do so.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister take the opportunity to deplore the action of Messrs Simmons and Simmons, the solicitors acting on behalf of the Sheik of Abu Dhabi, who have written to the Legal Aid Board to prevent former BCCI employees from obtaining legal aid? Is not it wrong that solicitors acting for a foreign Government should seek to deny British citizens the right to legal aid?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the solicitors' profession is independent and self-regulating, but there are mechanisms for complaints about solicitors' work and the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with those mechanisms.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I understood that legal aid was given only to those who required assistance and who could not afford litigation without it. I find it astonishing that in


England it can be given, with impunity, to millionaires. Will the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General consider the matter, because it is a wrong on the public that the poor should pay for the rich to litigate?

Mr. Taylor: Anyone litigating in the English courts is entitled to legal aid, regardless of nationality, subject to a test of means and of the merits of the case. The Legal Aid Board is required by regulation to disregard in its means assessment of an application for legal aid all assets that are the subject matter of the dispute. That is because those assets cannot be considered the resources of the applicant while the ownership is in dispute. I am aware of the cases that have caused great concern. The Legal Aid Board is looking into them, and so will the Lord Chancellor and I.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Disestablishment

Mr. Barnes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations he has received since 29 June on the financial consequences of disestablishment of the Church.

Mr. Alison: None.

Mr. Barnes: It is a bit surprising that there was not one letter, following Jonathan Dimbleby's interview with the Prince of Wales—one from the Prince himself. He obviously decided that he would write to the archbishop instead, withdrawing his initial position. Is not it a good idea that the Church should be disestablished? That would mean that everyone with different faiths and beliefs, and those with none, could begin to be considered within the state. It would be a particularly good idea for Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, who could then see that the British state did not have an established church.

Mr. Alison: I do not think that any non-Anglican Church in the British Isles, in England and in Wales or in the United Kingdom is in any way disadvantaged by the establishment of the Church of England. On the contrary, all derive benefit from the close relationship with an historic and traditional source of Christian truth and teaching, which is orthodox and catholic in its sweep and embrace, and which is shared, endorsed and propagated by the Churches of every non-Anglican denomination in the British Isles.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever view one might take about the present soundness or doctrinal orthodoxy of the leadership of the Church of England, with an established Church, every English person has, as an automatic birthright, the right to belong to the Church of England? That is an extraordinary thing and if it were taken away by some of the more liberally persuaded people in the Church of England, a great national Church would be turned into nothing more than a tiny sect.

Mr. Alison: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It must be borne in mind that there are probably as many communicant Anglicans in the House of Commons as there are members of the House of Laity in the General Synod. To that extent, Parliament is much more accessible to those whom one might call fellow travellers, who have sympathy with the Church of England. It is to the House of

Commons—to colleagues here—that they look instinctively to express their views, their aspirations and their fears about the Church of England.

Churches (Pit Villages)

Mr. Enright: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what capital funds have been set aside to assist in church regeneration programmes in small pit villages.

Mr. Alison: The commissioners' primary duty is to manage their assets for the benefit of the clergy, both serving and retired. There are therefore no funds set aside specifically for the purpose to which the question refers, although our financial support for the clergy is concentrated on the needier dioceses—for example, Wakefield, which covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency—where such villages are often situated.

Mr. Enright: Does not the right hon. Gentleman find it odd that a small congregation in Kinsley, which has inherited a down-at-heel, broken-down church and is trying to put it to rights, is having immense difficulty in getting funds from the Church while it sees funds easily going to those who have opposed the ordination of women? Is not there some imbalance there?

Mr. Alison: It is always possible to find one head of expenditure which sits uneasily with other heads of disbursement or with other heads of cost. Looking at the picture in the round, it is true to say that as much money as possible is allocated to poorer dioceses, such as the diocese of Wakefield, to help churches such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I give him a personal undertaking, especially in the light of our brief exchange in the Tea Room earlier, that I shall approach the Bishop of Wakefield, if the hon. Gentleman will give me details of the church with which he is particularly concerned, to see whether we can help in the obviously strained situation in the village which the hon. Gentleman has described.

Flying Bishops

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the pay and emoluments of flying bishops; from what date payments will be made; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: The Bishop of Beverley and the Bishop of Ebbsfleet took up their appointments as provincial episcopal visitors on 7 March and 29 April respectively. Their stipends are £19,895 a year and are in line with those paid to suffragan bishops. They are also provided with housing.

Mr. Greenway: Will the flying bishops have a role in administering to the 139 clergymen who have left the Church of England following the decision to ordain women? How many more ordained clergymen are expected to follow them? Will those bishops, like all other bishops, have a relationship with members of the royal family?

Mr. Alison: Links with the royal family are not likely to arise in the case of the two provincial visitors. Some 66 clergy may be thinking of leaving the Church of England,


in addition to the 160 who will have resigned by the end of July. I am quite certain that those 66 who have not yet

resigned but are thinking of doing so will be having interviews and taking pastoral advice from the two provincial bishops to whom I have referred.

Economic Summit (Naples)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Naples summit of 8 to 10 July, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have placed the communiqué of the seven-nation economic summit and the chairman's statement on the eight-nation political summit in the Library of the House.
The summit process is changing in two important ways. In 1991, I invited the then Soviet leader to join the seven for a meeting after the London summit. This practice was continued in 1992 and again in Tokyo last year. I discussed a new format with President Yeltsin in February. That was to invite Russia to become a full and equal partner in our political meeting. That was accepted and President Yeltsin's involvement brought an extra dimension to the political aspects of the summit. He made it clear that Russia will co-operate closely on the most difficult international problems, from Bosnia to North Korea; and he was warmly welcomed in that spirit.
The second change is that the summits are returning to the informality and free debate which characterised the early meetings 20 years ago. The move away from set-piece speeches and pre-scripted discussions made it the most wide-ranging summit which I have attended. We shall allow even more time for unscripted discussions next year at Halifax.
We spent some time discussing international institutions. Many of the main world bodies—the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, for example—have been with us for nearly half a century. The world has changed enormously in that period and so have some, but not all, of our institutions. For example, the World Trade Organisation will take over as a permanent body in place of GATT, itself originally a temporary structure. But, generally, we concluded that we should think about further changes to those institutions which may be needed in the future. We need to decide how best to meet the huge tasks confronting the different parts of the United Nations and how to respond to new economic problems. We may need to revitalise those institutions. We shall all consider that between now and the summit at Halifax next year. If we conclude that changes are necessary, we shall begin the process of bringing them about. The summit countries alone cannot make those changes, but it is right for us to ask whether they may be necessary.
On economic matters, the summit built on the G7 countries jobs conference held in Detroit earlier this year. The world economy is now emerging from recession. At Naples, there was wide agreement on the policies that the G7 countries now need to pursue: free trade, flexible labour markets, deregulation, policies that help and encourage unemployed people back in to work, and investment in education and training. Those themes will be familiar to the House, because they precisely match the policies that this Government have been pursuing. They were all warmly endorsed by the G7.
Further trade liberalisation is an important part of the G7's strategy. The completion of the Uruguay round was a significant achievement that will increase trade and growth right around the world. We need the various

agreements to be ratified by the end of this year. Thereafter, we should consider further initiatives on trade and on economic liberalisation.
The summit proposed additional debt relief for the poorest countries. That is something I have long been pressing for. At Naples, we agreed on two specific measures to help those countries facing special difficulties: first, more help with debt payments, taking the level of relief above 50 per cent.—to two-thirds and perhaps beyond; and, secondly, reductions in the stock of debt. We also agreed to explore ways of getting the international financial institutions to use their resources more effectively to help the poorest and most indebted countries.
Since I introduced the Trinidad terms initiative four years ago, 22 countries have benefited, with nearly $3 billion of debts written off thus far. The new proposals agreed at Naples will provide further help to lift a burden from some of the world's poorest countries.
We urged that there should be more help for the Palestinian authority, which is setting up an entirely new administration in Gaza and Jericho and needs to encourage new enterprises. Britain is contributing £75 million, bilaterally and multilaterally, over three years, including the extra help for running costs and technical assistance announced last week.
Likewise, in South Africa, Britain has allocated £100 million to transitional aid over the next three years. South Africa's re-entry into the economic mainstream could do much to revitalise southern and central Africa.
We also spent some time on Ukraine, where there is an evident need to restructure the economy. Given her position and size, it is important to have both a stable and prosperous Ukraine. The summit countries and the international financial institutions are keen to help that process, which must include reform of the energy sector. We are putting forward an action plan to close the Chernobyl nuclear plant, where there are continuing worries about the risk of another accident. Our plan will require reform by the Ukrainians as well as providing significant financial help from the west. We agreed also to replenish the nuclear safety account.
On the environment, the G7 were concerned about the slow progress in meeting the commitments made at the Earth summit in Rio, and agreed to speed this up. Britain itself has fully met her commitments under the action plan agreed after Rio by the Group of Seven. We have published the plans required under the climate change convention. We all agreed to report further progress at next year's G7 summit.
At the Commonwealth conference last year and the European Council in Corfu, I argued for more action by Governments to oppose transnational crime, drug trafficking and money laundering. This approach was strongly supported at Naples. Where necessary, we are urging countries around the world to introduce legislation to prevent money laundering.
Bosnia was discussed in my bilateral meetings with both the Russian and American Presidents and, of course, at the political summit itself.
Collectively and individually, our Governments will urge the parties to accept the Contact Group's settlement proposal. We are completely united on that point. There is a risk of a wider and more intense conflict if this opportunity for peace is not taken. Later this week my right


hon Friend the Foreign Secretary, together with the French Foreign Minister, will visit the former Yugoslavia to impress this point on the parties.
We need assurances about North Korea's nuclear programme, including compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and with International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The summit supported the efforts of the United States and of South Korea to develop a dialogue with the north, and I hope that they will be resumed when North Korea has a new leader.
In Yemen, the recent, brutal civil war has left fears about the country's future stability. Iraq's support for the north has caused justifiable concern to our friends in Saudi Arabia and Oman, both of which border Yemen. The summit called on the Yemeni authorities to resolve internal difficulties without repression. We were concerned that Yemen would become a new source of instability in the region.
I have highlighted the key political and economic points of what was effectively two summits in one. Summitry has proliferated over the past 20 years. I believe that we need a critical approach to make the best use of these occasions. Many worthwhile changes are now taking effect, and the Naples meeting was much more valuable as a result. I commend the outcome of the summit to the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: There is much in the communiqué that we welcome, and much on which the Prime Minister touched only lightly, if at all. In particular, we welcome the communiqué's strong emphasis on the need for action to create jobs, to promote growth and the increased wealth that that creates; to tackle the damage being done to our environment and especially the problem of Chernobyl, to which the Prime Minister referred, and to work with the Ukraine to remove its nuclear stockpile. I join the Prime Minister in urging acceptance of the settlement proposals for Bosnia since, unsatisfactory though some may think them, continued conflict could surely only be worse.
We were also pleased to see in the communiqué that a start is being made on the reform and modernisation of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. After talking about third-world debt relief on Trinidad terms for four years, it may actually begin to happen on a wider basis.
However, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that for many in the developing world, money will still just be going around in circles with money freed by bilateral debt relief going to the World bank or the IMF instead unless steps are taken towards multilateral debt relief, building on the approach already adopted?
Although the Prime Minister spoke this morning of the advantages of increased international trade, does he accept that unless we find some way of oiling the financial wheels and promoting international support for the economic reconstruction and development to which he referred—in South Africa, the middle east as well as in eastern Europe—it simply will not happen?
We welcome the reference in the communiqué to the fresh allocation of special drawing rights for which the IMF and the new members from eastern Europe have called. However, can the Prime Minister tell us anything

about the time scale for that decision and what discussions were held on other measures, perhaps, as in the past, financed from IMF gold stocks?
Will the role of the G8 be reviewed alongside the IMF and the World bank, as John Smith urged earlier this year, exploring the idea of an Economic Council of the United Nations alongside the Security Council and drawing in therefore, as the G8 at present fails to, other major economic players such as China and South America?
The Prime Minister's principal contention in what he said about the economic summit is that the rest of the world is following Britain's lead and that this because of our proven economic superiority. I can only describe that observation as self-deluding since it is supported neither by the words of the communiqué—and I urge Conservative Members to read the communiqué in the Library—nor by the facts.
As anyone who reads the communiqué will discover, it calls for the co-ordinated pursuit of growth, job creation, skills enhancement, support for innovation and infrastructural renewal. Those are all Labour party policies since before the last election and they were all denounced by the Prime Minister as irrelevant and wrong. That leads one to wonder why he signed a communiqué which calls for precisely those measures.
The Prime Minister should recognise that, if those words in the communiqué that he signed are to be more than empty words, a complete change of British Government policy will be required. Is it not the case that, far from endorsing the Government's recipe of never-ending deregulation and lower wages, in the discussions the American Secretary of Labour called it
part of the problem not part of the solution"—
and that, although there is a call in the summit communiqué to reduce employment costs, this Government have increased them by pushing up national insurance and loading sick pay costs on employers?
The Prime Minister must also be aware that the truth is that, while all our competitors are keeping, and in some cases increasing, minimum wage protection—for example, in France and in some parts of the United States—and bringing measures like extra family leave into train, their record on growth, skills and job creation is better than ours.
Is not the real message of the communiqué that our more successful rivals are pursuing, not the policies of this Government, but the path that we advocate? The Prime Minister and his colleagues show every sign of failing, yet again, to understand why they are failing Britain.

The Prime Minister: I must say that that was a very novel interpretation, on which I shall comment in a few moments.
I welcome the support that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) offered on a number of proposals in the communiqué relating to jobs, energy, environmental matters and on the approach that we are proposing on Bosnia. I also welcome what she said about the Trinidad terms. A substantial amount of debt has been written off already, but there is further to go. Some countries have been resistant to implementing the Trinidad terms, but I think that the Paris Club can now move ahead as a result of the agreement reached at the G7 in the past few days. That will be immensely helpful to many poor countries.
As the right hon. Lady intimated, there are other ways of helping poor countries. It was rather masked in the


arcane language of the communiqué, but we looked at using the IMF's gold stocks to assist not only the very poorest countries in the world, but areas such as Gaza and South Africa, where there is a self-evident need for help. That is a wise way for us to proceed. In terms of job creation in those countries, the opening of markets, the liberalisation of trade and the elimination of debt will all provide an incentive for growth that will show within those countries—providing we are able to proceed with those proposals.
The right hon. Lady then moved on to other matters and quoted rather selectively from the communiqué. Atlas, she missed some points, such as a number of structural measures to reduce labour rigidities, which add to employment costs or deter job creation, eliminate excessive regulations, which will ensure that indirect costs of employment are reduced where possible, and to pursue active labour market policies. The right hon. Lady's eyes apparently skimmed past a range of other things as she quoted from the communiqué. If she thinks that all those measures are Labour party policies, my hon. Friends and I will be very pleased to have learnt, at last, what it is that the Labour party stands for in terms of economic policies.
As for the right hon. Lady's concluding remarks about the relative performance of the United Kingdom, that is an old ground of dispute between us. I do not agree with her interpretation, because there is no doubt that our country is leading the European Community out of recession—there can be no doubt about that, because our growth this year is likely to be twice as high as that of any other European Community country. I find it astonishing that, when this country is doing well and companies and the work force are doing well, that is something that the Opposition appear to regret deeply. I am sorry to learn that.
I must tell the right hon. Lady that we are leading the country and Europe out of recession. It is extremely good news for the world economy that the American growth now exists, that the Germans are now out of recession and that the G7 as a whole is moving back into growth by following the sort of policies that have brought this country out of recession, and not the policies that the Opposition advocate, which would take it straight back into recession.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he did an excellent and workmanlike job for Britain at the Naples summit? He is to be congratulated on it. Like my right hon. Friend, I hope very much that the Contact Group will succeed in bringing peace of some kind to Bosnia. Can he explain why the Serb Bosnians should cease their fighting, after a 100-year ambition to expand their areas of control, when they have an unending supply of arms and equipment from Serbia proper? Has not the time come, particularly as Mr. Yeltsin is more on side now, to strengthen the embargo against Serbia proper in all sorts of ways? That would bring home to the Serbians and Serbian Bosnians that they cannot go on defying world opinion and that they must come to the peace table with everyone else.

The Prime Minister: In his last few words, my right hon. Friend set out clearly the message which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister will take to the Serbs in the course of the next few days. It must be made clear to Serbia that Serbia and the next generation of Serbians have no future unless they are prepared to come to an agreement that is satisfactory to the

world community. They cannot continue as they are and they can certainly expect no relaxation of sanctions or any international help until and unless they reach an agreement that will bring the fighting to an end.
For some time, both the Serbians and, on occasion, other parties have moved away from the settlement that could have been reached in the belief that, if they waited, they would get a better deal in the future. There is now no doubt that the international community is determined to do whatever it can to enforce a settlement. I find it striking that each of the political heads of the G8, including the President of Russia, were determined that now was the opportunity to put every conceivable pressure on all the parties to come to a satisfactory settlement.

Sir David Steel: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the forthcoming mission of the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Secretary, backed by President Yeltsin, to try to persuade the warring parties in Bosnia that they must accept the peace settlement, however imperfect, deserves the united support of this House?
On the economic section of the communiqué, will the Prime Minister forgive me if I do not quote bits of Liberal Democrat policy in its support, following the pattern already set? On the institutional changes contemplated in the world financial bodies, will he assure us that he will also look at their lack of accountability to member Governments and member Parliaments for the policies that they pursue?
Finally, does the Prime Minister accept that, although the communiqué is less specific than his statement, we welcome the new debt relief proposals that he has achieved? He will know that the all-party Africa caucus lobbied the Chancellor before the meeting, and he saw us last year. We are deeply grateful for the progress that has been made. It will certainly bring widespread relief to at least six of the poorest countries in Africa.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his final point. As soon as we have moved a little further with debt relief, we need to look again at the countries that are eligible for it. Some countries fall on just the wrong side of the debt relief line currently available under the Trinidad terms, but those countries may be helped by the point which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked me about—the proceeds of institutional gold sales by the IMF. That would not necessarily be restricted to Trinidad terms countries.
On the institutional changes, accountability certainly needs to be examined. That is perfectly clear. The underlying reason for that examination is simply to determine whether, after so many years, the institutions themselves are still relevant to the problems that are likely to face us in the next 10 or 15 years. By "institutions", I Mean not only the Bretton Woods institutions—the IMF and the World bank—but we need also to look at the United Nations, the development of NATO in the light of "Partnership for Peace", and the enlargement of the European Union, as well as the changes that we have already seen with GATT becoming the World Trade Organisation. Those are not matters which the G7 can determine but, in all those institutions, the G7 countries are leading members.
If we decide that there needs to be some reform, at that stage we shall wish to consult other members of those


institutions in an attempt to bring about the reform. But I emphasise that the G7 does not see itself as a directorate that can impose those changes on the institutions. We are simply making the point that now is the time to examine them to see what changes are necessary.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Bosnia and I am grateful for his support for the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members seek to question the Prime Minister. I am now looking for one brisk question each and, if I may, brisk answers.

Sir Peter Emery: Was further consideration given to the extension of the non-proliferation treaty to those countries that have not signed it? Will Japan support any action that might be taken against North Korea if the situation deteriorates rather than progresses?

The Prime Minister: There was, in discussion, unequivocal support by all the G7 members, including Japan—and of course Russia as part of the G8—for the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty in 1995.

Mr. Peter Shore: The summit communiqué reads remarkably like the election manifestos put out by my hon. Friends who are candidates for the Labour leadership—[Interruption.]—So, obviously, there are good things in it. In particular, I welcome the movement of the G7 into the G8, including Russia, and the arrangements for a very searching 50-year anniversary review of the institutions set up in Bretton Woods. On the question of aid, can the Prime Minister tell us what figure he hopes to put on the further concessions of debt relief as compared with the $3,000 million debt relief already gained?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is difficult to put a precise figure on it. I will examine the scope for further reduction, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with a figure. It will be a very substantial figure indeed, but I cannot immediately put a figure on it.
On the earlier points, I am pleased to have the right hon. Gentleman's support for the review of the institutions. I was a little surprised to hear of the apparent similarity between the communiqué and the manifestos of the potential leaders of the Labour party, which I have read with great interest—[Interruption.] I am not sure that my vote would swing the result—not least, though, alas, he is not with us this afternoon, that of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who, despite what was in the G7 communiqué, said on 4 July:
Deregulation has been an economic failure".

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's reply to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about nuclear proliferation, does he agree that one of the biggest problems is that North Korea and China are at the apex of a chain of proliferation which has already taken place, and that many countries in the middle east, not least Iran, Iraq and Libya, have significant capability and within the next five or six years are likely to have a launch facility which

will be able to strike parts of Europe? Does he agree that now is the time for us to accept that proliferation has to some extent failed, and to find new measures?

The Prime Minister: I am disinclined to accept the concept that proliferation has failed because I think that it is extremely important that we press the case for non-proliferation whenever and wherever we have the opportunity. It is not always entirely clear precisely who has the capacity to launch nuclear weapons and who has them. I wish it were a good deal clearer than it sometimes seems to us. But there is no doubt that we need to maintain pressure. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of countries which we have been pressing precisely on this point. He could probably name others, and so could I. However, we intend to continue to press for non-proliferation both through the treaty and, of course, bilaterally.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What did President Yeltsin say to his colleagues about sanctions against Iraq? How does the Prime Minister feel about continuing sanctions and the shortage of water filters and water pumps in the sweltering heat of Baghdad which will most certainly lead to massive disease in the Euphrates and Tigris valleys?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows of the humanitarian options that are available, and he and I have had the opportunity of discussing them in the past. President Yeltsin did not express a view on this matter, but Russia, of course, has supported the imposition of sanctions on Iraq, and continues to do so.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Group of Seven considered the long-term economic impact on the rest of the world of the growing industrial strength of Asiatic countries, not only Japan, Korea and Taiwan, as it was, but now increasingly India, China and half a dozen other countries?

The Prime Minister: We did not specifically discuss those countries in that sense, but in all the economic discussions of employment and growth, the changing position of south-east Asia and the Pacific basin countries was ever present in our minds. Many of the countries that were relatively captive markets to western states 20 or 25 years ago are now not only competing with those previous supplier countries but competing very successfully with them in different parts of the world. That is one of the matters that I think underlies the concern that we have for the maximum amount of industrial efficiency in this country, because competitiveness is far greater as a result of what has happened in the Pacific basin than it has ever been before.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the contribution that Her Majesty's Government are making to the rebuilding of Palestine. Would he be good enough to give the House some idea of what contributions his G7 colleagues are likely to make to that purpose, and does he consider them anything like sufficient for the immense job that faces President Arafat?

The Prime Minister: It is, as the hon. Gentleman says, an absolutely immense job. Apart from our bilateral contributions, there will be bilateral contributions of various sizes from a number of the other G7 countries, and


also a substantial collective contribution from the European Union. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with details of the figures that we have.

Mr. Nigel Forman: May I return to the issue of non-proliferation in relation to nuclear matters? Was there any consideration at the summit of measures that it might be right for the G7 to take—and Russia to take—to encourage other sources of energy in countries that might be tempted to go nuclear precisely because they see nuclear power as their best chance for the future?

The Prime Minister: There was no discussion on that point—time did not permit detailed discussions on it. We are primarily concerned to make sure that the non-proliferation treaty is extended and that it sticks. As my hon. Friend will know, a large number of countries are at the moment disinclined to sign it; we are very concerned to make sure that they do.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Another summit, another jamboree. Why did not the Prime Minister tell us about the part of the communiqué that he had to deliver at the end of the summit in respect of those two Tory Members of Parliament with their noses in the trough?
On the subject of deregulation, why should big business have to carry the on-costs of lining the pockets of Tory Members to put down questions? In some of the other G7 Parliaments, the rule is: one Member of Parliament, one job only. If people cannot manage on £31,000 a year, they should not put up for the job.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman no doubt thinks that these summits are enormous fun. Set against the attractions of a cricket final at Lords they do pale to a certain extent, at least for me. The matters mentioned, with his usual delicacy, by the hon. Gentleman were not discussed at the summit.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: When the Foreign Secretary goes on his crucial mission this week—we all wish him success in that—will he and his colleagues see President Milosevic, Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic together, to impress on them not only how seriously the G8 view their appalling actions but also the fact that those who are responsible for war crimes will be brought to book?

The Prime Minister: I am confident that my right hon. Friend will meet each and every one of those gentlemen, but I very much doubt whether he will meet them together. There are likely to be separate meetings. He certainly proposes to see the leaders of the Serbs and the Bosnian Serbs, and I have no doubt that he will make my hon. Friend's final point to them.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Did the Prime Minister, in one of his scripted or unscripted moments in Naples, discuss the presidency of the Commission? In his quest for anyone but Dehaene to succeed Delors, can he tell the House who now is in the frame and what qualities they have?

The Prime Minister: That too was not a matter for the G7 summit. There was no formal discussion at Naples of the Commission presidency—

Dr. John Cunningham: Go on.

The Prime Minister: I shall repeat it for the right hon. Gentleman's benefit: there was no formal discussion in Naples of the Commission presidency. It would be wholly wrong for four member states to form a caucus. [Laughter.] The House is well aware of the objection that I took to that on a previous occasion when there seemed to be a caucus. What is needed is thorough consultation between all 12 states, and that is what the German presidency has in hand.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: The conclusions of the summit properly recognised the importance to economic growth of deregulation and labour market reform—despite the somewhat spurious claims of the Johnnies-come-lately on the Opposition Benches. Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in a European context, subsidiarity is particularly important? Does he agree with Klaus Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, who recently said that subsidiarity provides the opportunity to roll back European decision making? Is not that evidence that European decision makers are at last coming round to the British view on subsidiarity?

The Prime Minister: I certainly know that the German presidency proposes to take subsidiarity a good deal further during its presidency of the European Union in the second half of this year. I have not heard the particular quote by Mr. Kinkel, but it is certainly one to which I would subscribe, and it is an indication of the extent to which the terms of debate in Europe have changed.

Mr. Harry Barnes: If the Government think that they are dragging us up the economic hill, taking the G7 countries behind us, who took us down in the first place?

The Prime Minister: One might ask the same question of all the G7 countries which suffered recession.

Mr. Barry Field: In three weeks' time, the Bank of England will be celebrating 300 years of survival. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best news to come out of the summit is that the G7 central banks, and the Bank of England in particular, would no longer be required to chase the US dollar all over the Pacific?

The Prime Minister: The tercentenary of the Bank of England is a remarkable occasion: the bank has been an astonishing institution over the years. My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Virtually the whole House will approve of the G7 putting up the money to close down Chernobyl nuclear power station. When is that likely to come about? There are other nuclear power stations of similar design in the former Soviet bloc. Will money be put up to close them down as well?

The Prime Minister: We have reached agreement on the way to help the Ukrainian authorities to close the Chernobyl plant. That involves closing the remaining reactors and assisting to complete new reactors with modern safety standards. That will now have to be discussed with the Ukraine. That will happen speedily, and I hope that the resources can then be made available. We have centred on Chernobyl because of the nature of that reactor and its condition, which is one of the special concerns.

Mr. John Greenway: Given that much of the nervousness in world financial markets appears in part to be due to worries about long-term inflation, what discussion took place on inflation prospects? Were other countries present able to point to the good news on inflation such as that we had today on factory prices?

The Prime Minister: Yes, there was some discussion on inflation. There is no doubt that at the moment inflationary tendencies are subdued, not just in this country but in other countries. It is certainly the intention of the G7 Governments, as far as it is practicable, to keep inflation at the lowest possible level. I hope that that will have its long-term impact on the markets as soon as it is apparent to them that that is happening.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The news that the United Nations and its organisations and the international financial institutions are to be reviewed is welcome, but is not this a matter of such importance that it would be appropriate for the Government to issue a consultation paper so that there could be widespread debate in this country on those matters?

The Prime Minister: We first have to consider the matter ourselves. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not immediately attracted to issuing a White Paper. I think that the first process is for us to consider as a Government—and I accept that it is certainly a reasonable matter for a debate in the House—whether we think that changes are necessary and, if so, what they might be. However, I would prefer to engage in discussion with other Governments before deciding what to press for. Although I hope that other people would not hesitate about letting us have their views, I am not at the moment attracted to publishing a White Paper.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I draw attention to the pressure, according to the communiqué, that the G7 countries and Russia are putting on the Haitian junta to step down? In his campaign for democracy and human rights, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the last Latin American republic that has still not returned to democracy and human rights—Cuba?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right: Haiti is a matter of some concern to a number of countries and, of course, particularly, for self-evident reasons, to the United States. We should certainly like to see the restoration of President Aristide and democratic government. That is equally the view of the other G7 Heads of Government.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Prime Minister spoke of the concern of the G7 Governments for the poorest in the world. Was he able to tell them when his Government would reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP for overseas aid?

The Prime Minister: No Government was able to give a commitment as to when that would be. As the hon. Lady knows, I think that we have the sixth largest aid programme in the world. I think that our record is unequalled by any other country in terms of the amount and speed with which we have completely written off historic debt.

Mr. Michael Brown: I believe that my right hon. Friend said that South Africa was discussed at the summit over the weekend. Will he confirm

that it is imperative that the G7, rather than just the United Kingdom, contributes to ensuring the economic development and regeneration of South Africa? If that country succeeds economically, the trickle-down effect across the whole continent will be of great benefit.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that other countries also recognise the importance of South Africa. In effect, they recognise that in two ways—the importance of dealing with the internal difficulties of the new South African Government; and, equally, the impact of a successful South Africa on the whole of southern and central Africa. I have no doubt that other countries will offer assistance. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of trade is currently in South Africa, with business men, to determine what assistance can be given.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: In his statement, the Prime Minister suggested that the G7 supported his Government's calls for flexible labour markets. However, was it not the case that in the final communiqué other members of the G7 insisted specifically that the word "flexible" was not part of the final words? Is not that because they have quite a different view from Government policy on the best way to create jobs?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman heard that, but it did not occur in any discussion to which I was party.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Following directly from the question asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) about job creation, did not the G7—now G8—countries discuss the introduction of an information super-highway? Did not they have before them the European Commission's White Paper on growth, competitiveness and trade? If so, were not they surprised that it is full of the British solution to introducing an information super-highway, which is competition, deregulation and privatisation?

The Prime Minister: That White Paper was referred to in the discussions, although the super-highway was not mentioned other than in the general sense of greater liberalisation of telecommunications.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why the G7 nations cannot bring pressure to bear on the International Monetary Fund and the World bank on the issue of accountability? Will pressure be brought to bear on the IMF and the World bank to ensure that in future developing nations will be genuinely treated as equal partners and not as beggars?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the IMF views indebted countries in that fashion. It tries to assist them and to help them out of their difficulties. That is one of its purposes. Certainly those IMF officials whom I have met would not in any way characterise the countries in the way that the hon. Lady described them.
There is no doubt that there is a need for assistance for those countries. I believe that the IMF provides it. However, as we examine the future of the IMF and other institutions, we need to consider whether that can be done better in the future than it has been done in the past.

Mr. John Marshall: Although the whole House welcomes the trade and aid policies being


pursued by the European Union towards Gaza and Jericho, does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsibility for helping those parts of the world goes much wider than just Europe? Was any estimate made of the contribution that the oil-rich Arab states could make to the regeneration process?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches upon an important point. There is no doubt that the Arab states—many, although not all, of which are oil-rich—should make a significant contribution to the future development of Gaza. That point is relevant—[Interruption.] I hear an Opposition Member whispering that some of them have already committed—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Some of the money has gone.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman interrupts me. An Opposition Member whispered that some of the Arab states have already contributed. Others have indicated that they will do so.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Was there any discussion of the urgent need to provide continuing financial assistance to those countries most heavily affected by the imposition of United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro? The Prime Minister will surely agree that Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Macedonia deserve continuing assistance.

The Prime Minister: There was no specific discussion of that matter, for the simple reason that the international financial institutions take that into account in the assistance that they provide at present.

Mr. Michael Bates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that news that the considerable needs of the poorest nations of the world featured so high on the agenda of a meeting of the richest seven nations will be deeply refreshing to many people throughout the country? Will he ensure that the review of international institutions, which is long overdue in the eyes of many, will specifically examine

the costs of bureaucracy and duplication so that the maximum amount of money can go to those who need it most?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. In providing further assistance to many of the poorest countries, there is a need not only for cash assistance—and I do not resile from the fact that much of that is necessary—but to do whatever can be done to ensure that the money is used for the purposes for which it was intended.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Did I hear the Prime Minister make a fleeting reference to unemployment and employment creation? If I did, does the right hon. Gentleman accept Library statistics that show that, in Britain today, only 25 million people are in employment when the peak figure in 1990 was 26 million? We are 1 million jobs short. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that, when the G7 nations discussed that matter, they did not settle on the part-time, low-wage, poverty-making employment that the right hon. Gentleman's Government have created? What will they do to provide real jobs at decent wages for people in G7 countries?

The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he is completely wrong. Perhaps he would like to tell me how many countries have a higher proportion of their adult population in work than does this country. There is only one in the European Union, and the hon. Gentleman would go a long way outside to find another that is better. The drivel talked by his hon. Friends can safely be ignored.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, either at the summit or in his bilateral discussions with President Clinton, he raised concerns about the fall in the US dollar and the impact that that would have on constituents such as mine who work at Jaguar who need to export to the US market?

The Prime Minister: No. I am not going to make any comments in the House on currency values.

Points of Order

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Over the past two years, you have been vigilant on behalf of the legislature in holding the Executive to account in the House. Last week, the Department of Trade and Industry modified its policy in relation to naming an individual who is subject to investigation for insider trading. We are advised that there will be a further statement on the same subject this week by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). Would not it be right and appropriate for such a statement to be made on the Floor of the House so that the Executive can be held accountable to us all?

Madam Speaker: The whole House knows my views on how, why and by what methods the Executive should be held to account on behalf of the people of this country through the House—but I have not been told whether a statement is to be made this week or at any other time.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard of the stories that appeared in The Sunday Times about a confidence trickster who came to the Palace of Westminster. I would describe him as an agent provocateur. Would the correct procedure for any hon. Member—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this matter—I believe that I know the point that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise. I make it clear to the House that anyone who alleges that a breach of privilege has occurred should write to me without delay. I assure the House that I already have that matter under urgent and active consideration. I shall report to the House as soon as I can. The House will be the first to hear my statement. We must proceed.

Mr. Graham Riddick: rose—

Madam Speaker: I will take no further points of order on that matter. Is it a totally different point of order?

Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Riddick: Yes, Madam Speaker. May I voice my strong support for the suggestion that an inquiry is set up into the—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard quite enough. I made my views known to the House. I repeat that I have the matter under urgent and active consideration. The House will know my views as soon as I have reached a decision.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I will accept no further points of order on that matter.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Michael Connarty: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I call Mr. Connarty.

Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Scottish Question Time last Wednesday, 6 July, as

reported in column 304 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) asked a question about power. I noticed that in the Register of Members' Interests that Member is paid a consultancy fee by Scottish Power and has a car from that company. My point of order is that Members should enter in the register the amount of money that they get—

Madam Speaker: Order. At Question Time hon. Members do not have to divulge their interests. I thought that that was known by the entire House.

Mr. Connarty: They should.

Madam Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentleman must raise the matter with the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is, Madam Speaker. Will you rule on a contradiction between two resolutions—a contradiction that will not be dealt with in any announcement that you might make to the House at any stage on the issue of privilege? One resolution was carried in 1695 and states that the House of Commons resolved that
the offer of money, or other advantage, to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted In Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanour"—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that Speakers do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall be happy to give him the best possible advice, but I shall not proceed with the matter now. I have made my decision and that is final.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On what basis does—

Madam Speaker: Order. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about a procedural matter—a matter that he alone is concerned about. He does not know what my eventual ruling will be. If he writes to me, I will give him procedural advice.

Mr. Connarty: rose—

Madam Speaker: I have already heard a point of order from the hon. Gentleman.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The chief executive of the Royal Free hospital trust in my constituency issued a statement on Friday, saying that residents of my constituency in the NW5 postal district would be excluded from that hospital's catchment area due to lack of central Government funding. As that flies in the face of the statement by the Secretary of State for Health—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a totally bogus point of order. That is a matter not for me but for the Executive. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Speaker of this House.

Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Scottish Question Time, the hon. Member for


Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) used the terms "corruption" and "dubious practice". In the light of the recent revelations, can you rule—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? I have had enough bogus points of order for today. The House must wait for my ruling.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You ruled, Madam Speaker, that matters of procedure should be dealt with in writing to you. I have never heard such a ruling from the Chair before in all my 14 years here. I have heard the ruling that matters of privilege should be dealt with in correspondence to the Speaker. Can I protect the rights of Back-Benchers by exercising my right to ask a question on an issue of procedure, not of privilege, and return to the subject of the two resolutions of the House in 1695 and 1974? One is on page—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order that is allied to a matter that I have dealt with. I am the first to protect the rights of all Back Benchers and that is what I have done by my decision today. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue that matter.
Let me make one point clear: matters of procedure are not dealt with across the Floor of the House. My predecessors never gave advice across the Floor about the way to proceed. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall do my utmost to give him the right advice.

BILLS PRESENTED

UNFAIR DISMISSAL (INSOLVENCY OF EMPLOYER)

Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Norman Hogg, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. David Winnick, presented a Bill to amend section 122 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 so as to extend the awards of compensation for unfair dismissal which may be paid from the Redundancy Fund in the event of insolvency of the employer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION

Mr. Cynog Dafis, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to draw up plans in order to achieve certain stated road traffic reduction targets and the discussion of those plans in Parliament; to require local authorities to draw up local traffic reduction plans; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October 1994, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — European Union (Accessions) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Bill introduces a treaty whose provisions concern four applicant members joining the European Community. The provisions of the treaty are consequent on all four members' joining. If one of those members, or more—as a result of referendums—were not then to join the Community, what impact would that then have on this legislation and what consequent procedures would we need?

Madam Speaker: That is a very good question, which the Foreign Secretary may attempt to answer during the debate.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is quite neat for the Second Reading debate to follow the Prime Minister's account of the summit in Naples. One of the themes of that summit was the need for international institutions to adapt to changed circumstances. For the world has changed. Economies that were recently impoverished are now competing successfully with ours; we have a world without communism in which the socialist model of development is largely discredited, and a Europe without the Berlin wall in which the words "peace, freedom and democracy" have one meaning and not two.
Those are new thoughts. Have we really understood the implications of such changes for our institutions? We know how earthquakes happen: when the tectonic plates of the earth shift, earthquakes are followed by aftershocks, and it takes time for the terrain to stabilise and become familiar again. The international terrain is not stable now; it is not yet familiar again; the aftershocks are still with us.
We have already made important changes in our institutions. The Bretton Woods institutions mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—the IMF and the World bank, which are 50 years old this week—are changing their role and their membership. The GATT is about to become the World Trade Organisation. NATO is adjusting to a new security landscape, reaching eastward through "Partnership for Peace". There is discussion about reforming the United Nations Security Council. The G7 is becoming the G8, and, I hope, is returning to its traditional format of the "fireside chat".
We have made all those changes, but we shall certainly need more. That applies—particularly this afternoon—to the European Union. Old certainties are changing; unthinking centralism is a theme of the past. Ideas and structures that made sense—good sense, perhaps—for the six original members will make no sense for the European Union of 20 members, or probably more, for which we are heading. That is why subsidiarity, respect for national traditions and diversity are growing themes for the future.
One such theme that is influencing the future of the European Union powerfully is the theme of enlargement. That will apply first to the four European Free Trade Association countries—Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden—and then, I hope, will apply further east. That is why the Bill is important: it shows that the European Union recognises the need for change in its external as well as its internal affairs.
The Bill follows from the treaty of accession between the European Union and Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden, which was signed two weeks ago in Corfu. It will ensure that Britain is able to honour the obligations laid down in that treaty; its passage is essential if we are to ratify the accession treaty and allow those four countries to accede to the Union. The Bill gives effect to the treaty in United Kingdom law by adding it to the list of Community treaties in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, and clause 2 also approves the treaty for the purposes of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978.
Let me now deal with the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Article 2 of the treaty allows for technical adjustments to be made if an acceding state fails to ratify. My hon. Friend made the reasonable point that each of the four applicants would need referendums in their own countries under their own constitutional procedures; one referendum has been conducted successfully, and three are awaited. But the people who drafted the treaty were aware of that point. That is why they provided in the treaty for technical adjustments to be made by the Council of the European Union if an acceding state failed to ratify.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful information. But the technical adjustments could affect the balance in qualified majority voting. Is there a formula that my right hon. Friend could introduce to the House? Or could the balance be changed during the technical adjustments—in which case what instrument would be introduced to ratify those adjustments?

Mr. Hurd: We shall certainly follow up that point. My hon. Friend the Minister of State can deal with it at greater length in his winding-up speech. There is provision in the treaty to deal with that matter. If such action were needed, the Council of Ministers would make a decision, which would be followed by our own parliamentary procedure. Details of that procedure may be given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, my hon. Friend's point has been covered in the treaty.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way, but it might be better to deal with this matter now. The Bill refers to the treaty on accession to the European Union, whereas the Act that joined us to what is commonly known as the Maastricht treaty referred only to titles II, III and IV of that treaty. Will the Secretary of State tell us why that formula was not repeated here, with reference only to titles II, III and IV—which of course have the legislative effect, as distinct from those under the prerogative of the Crown?

Mr. Hurd: We are advised that there is no need to do otherwise than is provided for in the Bill because there would be no effect in United Kingdom law. The Bill covers the points that it needs to cover and not others.
This is a short but significant Bill. I shall try to explain briefly why enlargement to cover the four countries will


substantially benefit Britain, our consumers and our businesses. The Bill and the treaty point the European Union in the right direction. We are showing by enlargement that we realise that half of Europe is not the whole of Europe—that the European Union is not an exclusive club but an extended family of nations. No family can shut out its members and stay at ease with itself. We should not treat our success in the European Union as a commodity that we hoard to ourselves. It is a model to emulate and a prize to be shared.
We have held that view in this country for a long time. No other Government have argued as forcefully as ours that the European Union should open its doors. No other leaders have argued as strongly as the Prime Minister and Baroness Thatcher that Europe is not an exclusive club.

Mr. Giles Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: No. I should like to continue for a little while.
When we began the argument, it was very controversial. At first, it met stiff resistance. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) knows that because he has followed these matters and held more consistent opinions on them than most Opposition Members. He knows perfectly well that the idea of widening the Community jarred harshly with the old-fashioned idea that European construction came only by the steady centralisation of power in Brussels. The cry was, "We must deepen, we must not widen." Opponents of enlargement, who were strong at one time, saw it as an unwelcome distraction from the gradual centralisation of power. We had to argue at Maastricht—and we prevailed in the argument—that the treaty should include the right signal that any member state could apply to become a member of the Union.

Mr. Radice: It is true that the Government have been in favour of enlargement and I congratulate them on that, but it is a bit much not to acknowledge that the united Germany has always been in favour of enlargement as well. It was Mr. Kohl who said that the borders of the European Union should not end on the Oder-Neisse line, and he was right.

Mr. Hurd: Indeed, Mr. Kohl and the unified Germany have made that point; we were making it substantially in advance of that.

Mr. Radice: No.

Mr. Hurd: History shows that clearly.
We kept up the impetus on behalf of enlargement during the British presidency and at the European Council in Edinburgh in December 1992. That was when the decision was taken to open negotiations promptly with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden. At the same time, we held out the prospect of membership for the new democracies of eastern Europe. It was really no accident that it was our presidency that marked the decisive point in the history of enlargement.
Those four countries are, of course, all members of the European Free Trade Association. We in Britain thought for a time that the European free trade area would provide an alternative to membership of the European Economic Community—a way of having our cake and eating it. We saw it as a means of increasing trade and co-operation with Europe without having to give up any power to

supranational institutions. After a year or so—I am talking of 30 years ago—we realised that that was an error and that a free trade area alone would not provide the European prosperity that we desired. We also realised that the European Community, with the powerful economies of Germany and France at its heart, was destined to be a major player in Europe and that it would not be to our benefit to remain outside. That is why, with the Danes, we left EFTA in 1972 and joined the European Community.
A number of European countries could not do that. The Norwegian Government wanted to join the EC, but the Norwegian people voted against membership in 1972. Finland's long border with Russia made it very cautious about provoking the Soviet Union by moving towards closer integration with western Europe. Then the plates shifted; the world changed. The cold war ended and the collapse of the Soviet threat allowed Finland and the other neutral countries—Austria, Sweden and Switzerland—to look again at their policies towards western European institutions. They no longer felt that they had to remain outside for security reasons and they began to weigh up the benefits of EC membership.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Can my right hon. Friend give us some explanation of what he understands by the word "deepening" in a European context? We want to know whether we are to welcome those four countries so that the European Union may be loosened up or whether we shall be told continuously that it is possible to have further deepening as well as enlargement and even that it may become necessary to have a single currency because we have more members in the European Union.

Mr. Hurd: I can think of several arguments for a single currency, but not that one. The two processes—deepening and widening—have to be considered separately on their merits. What we rejected in the early days was the idea that we could not enlarge because we had to spend all our time deepening. The two things are entirely separate. What we are dealing with here is enlargement. The treaty of Maastricht is the basis on which the Community will rest for the next few years. What we are discussing now is the extent to which the Community should be enlarged on that basis.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: May I none the less coax my right hon. Friend into agreeing that the striking feature about the four countries now joining, subject to the referendums, is that they have all strongly reiterated their adherence to deeper integration as the only way in which to take the Community forward? They have all said that with great emphasis in all their official statements.

Mr. Hurd: Before I close, I shall analyse rather more clearly what the role of the four countries is likely to be. I shall spend a little time on that before I conclude.
I was talking about what happened when the cold war ended and how that altered the view of the four countries. Something else happened. Around the same time, or a year or two earlier, the member states of the European Community decided to form a single market. The Single European Act in 1986 marked a new stage in the development of the Community. Its businesses were gradually able to operate on a truly European scale for Europe-wide growth and prosperity. The EFTA countries rightly feared that they would be sidelined as business and


investment were drawn to the greater opportunities then offered by the Community. That is why the EFTA countries joined the Community to form the European Economic Area which covered all the EFTA countries except Switzerland and virtually all the single market legislation of the Community.
So the four countries with which we are concerned today are already members of the single market. They have already taken on most of the European Community legislation in that area. The point that I am making, however, is that they are not satisfied with that. They have no real say in the drafting of new legislation which affects them. They have no seat at the table where it is decided and they are excluded from other areas of European policy—the common commercial policy, financial and fiscal policies, the intergovernmental pillars of the treaty of Maastricht, the work-together on foreign policy, and the work-together on Home Office matters such as the drive against crime and the drug trade.
Rather than settle for that second-class status in Europe, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Austria all elected to go the whole way for what they saw as the big prize: to take their place in shaping the future of Europe rather than allowing others to shape their future without them. They recognise that only by joining the European Union can they have a say in the decisions that affect the whole of Europe, and that only by taking their seats at the European table can they truly play a part in Europe's future.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I could use the same arguments about sitting at the top table in the context of Scotland. The four countries that we are discussing have already achieved economic convergence with the European Union. But the Foreign Secretary talks about further enlargement. What kind of time scale is envisaged and what kind of criteria will be used for the emerging democracies?

Mr. Hurd: Poland, Hungary, Cyprus, Malta and Turkey have applied, but we are not negotiating with them at present because it will be some time—they accept this—before they are qualified. Qualification means being political democracies—they are all political democracies -and it also means being economically qualified to take on the treaty's competition rules about state aids. It will take some time. I do not believe that the next stage of enlargement to full membership is likely to be completed in this century, but that is a matter for discussion. There has been no decision on timetables.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend address the preamble to the question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? Does he not see how integration with the European Union is being used by the Scottish nationalists to destabilise the integrity of the United Kingdom, and that they are campaigning for an independent Scotland in the European Union? Does he not see how our integration with the European Union gives credibility to those arguments?

Mr. Hurd: I have been hearing those arguments for ever. They make no sense and I am amazed that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) should pay such attention to them. The idea that it makes sense for Scotland to detach itself from the United

Kingdom, and therefore from our membership of the EU, and the idea that it would be an easy or pain-free operation to then knock on the door in a completely new set of clothes and say, "This is little Scotland wanting to come in", is simply unreal. When that issue is explored before a Scottish audience, I find that the assembly argument disintegrates quite quickly. I hope that all of us who disagree with it and who wish to preserve the Union of this kingdom will not give the idea the kind of credence which, unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North seems to be bestowing on it.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd: No. I want to get on. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) leaning forward in his seat, but I must get on because many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.
We are not yet at the point where the process is complete, because of the issue of referendums, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North raised a few minutes ago. The Austrian people voted on membership a few weeks ago. They were submitted to the usual mishmash of views on and criticisms of Europe—some, alas, perfectly true and others mythical. Having been exposed to that for a number of weeks, a resounding majority voted in favour of membership. The last fling of the "no" campaign was the accusation that, in future, yoghurts would contain Spanish beetles as colouring matter, and that that was not a price that the Austrian people should pay for joining the Union. As a result of that clash of opinions, they voted in favour of membership. We were pleased to see that and pleased with the margin by which they did it. I cannot predict—obviously, it would be foolish to predict—the outcome of the remaining three referendums this autumn. Obviously, the Austrian result is hopeful and we hope that the Finns, the Swedes and the Norwegians will vote to join us.
The accession negotiations were certainly not always plain sailing, as the House will remember. All the parties concerned had important interests: all the applicant countries had important interests to protect and it was not easy to find a balance between them. The outcome in the treaty was a good deal for the applicant countries, a good deal for Britain and a good deal for Europe as a whole.
One of our many concerns, as we went into those negotiations, was a point that has already been touched on: the arrangements for how decisions should be taken—not the question of the national veto, which featured largely in the recent European elections in this country, because that was not at stake—in the provisions for qualified majority voting. We wanted to ensure that there would be a fundamental review of the QMV system in the 1996 intergovernmental conference. As the House knows, that was agreed. The conference will have to devise—it will not be easy—a formula which more closely reflects population levels in member countries but ensures that the rights of minorities are properly safeguarded.
During the discussions in the spring, we agreed finally on a legally binding arrangement, which requires the presidency and the Commission to take any initiative necessary to reach a solution supported by member states with at least 68 votes. We had a rough time on that. With the Spaniards, we pressed for stronger protection for minorities, whereas 10 member states resisted anything


other than the automatic uprating of the figures which had occurred on earlier enlargements. Experience next year, when—we hope—the arrangement comes into effect, and thereafter will show how it works out. I am reasonably confident that, in practice, the compromise that we accepted will justify itself.
Certainly, the clarifications which we attained at the same time on the Commission's social programme have already proved their worth. I am clear that we would have scored a dramatic own goal if we had disrupted the whole process of enlargement because of a disagreement over the figures for qualified majority voting.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I should like to clarify the point that my right hon. Friend was making when he said that the arrangement was legally binding. He meant, of course, that it was legally binding in international law and not under the auspices of the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Hurd: It is the subject of a decision of the Council and, as the German Foreign Minister confirmed at the time, it is legally binding under European law. There are two documents—a declaration and a decision. The declaration is not legally binding and the decision—in jargon terms, the Beschluss—is legally binding.
Let me refer to the practical consequences of enlargement. Like us, Sweden, Austria and Norway will be net contributors to the Community budget. So they will share our interest in budget discipline and in value for money. Like us, they will want to ensure that Community funds are used efficiently. The fact that four relatively well-off countries will be coming into the European Union will reduce the amount that other countries, including Britain, will need to contribute to the budget. We expect our British contribution to be some £300 million sterling less over the first six years of accession than it would otherwise have been.
All four of those countries will, we believe, join us in arguing for a market-oriented, free-trading Europe, rather than the more protectionist "Fortress Europe" approach, which has its advocates in the EU. We steadily fight against that approach and we shall have allies in that argument.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I shall get on a little and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.
In particular, the close ties that those four countries have with the countries in central and eastern Europe mean that, like us, they will want to see the benefits of the free market extended to the whole of Europe. I can give a practical example of that. Finland, Sweden and Norway already have free-trade agreements with the Baltic states—they are ahead of the European Union in that respect—but, because of accession, those trade arrangements with the Baltics will, from next year, extend to the whole of the European Union. That is a practical example of how the free-trade impulses of the new arrivals have already affected, for the better in our view, the trading arrangements of the rest of US.
We can also expect the four countries to support us in arguing for the vigorous application of subsidiarity throughout the Community. They have all applied to join the European Union because they believe, like us, that certain matters are best discussed at European level. But they all have strong traditions of democracy and

independence and do not want to see the Community act in areas where decisions could best be made at national level. Like us, they believe that the European Union should be a union of diverse nation states, each preserving its own traditions and its own identity. They take the view that their accession will add to that diversity.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Scandinavian countries have a strong position—it is one that he has not mentioned—on social policy, trade union rights, consumerism, the environment, a single currency and on many other matters, including an obsession with the deutschmark, in respect of which we have taken a directly contrary view? Given our reservations about centralising and socialising tendencies in Brussels, we have sought to resist those tendencies, whereas the Scandinavian countries have an active policy of encouraging them.

Mr. Hurd: I have not yet mentioned those matters, because I gave way to my hon. Friend before I completed my speech. I wish now that I had let my hon. Friend make his own speech and that I had not given way to him. I shall touch on the matters to which he has referred as I continue, and I shall now continue.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Gill: rose—

Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way. I have had experience of several of my hon. Friends making their speeches in the middle of mine. Perhaps the House should have a clearer understanding of what I intend to mention before I am rebuked for not mentioning certain things. I can never resist my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), however, and before I conclude I shall give way to him, but not now.
The four countries that I have mentioned will take—

Mr. Gill: I would ask my right hon. Friend to give way now.

Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to my hon. Friend and then I will bring my remarks to an end.

Mr. Gill: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) intervened, my right hon. Friend was talking about the need for the countries that are now proposing to join the European Union to preserve their own national identity. Is he aware of the remark that the German ambassador to Moscow is reported to have made to the effect that national sovereignty is becoming irrelevant and meaningless, but that for all that many still cling to it? I accept that my right hon. Friend cannot be held responsible for what German diplomats say, but it is worth putting on record the fact that there are people in the German foreign department who apparently take a view that is contrary to that of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members hope to catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair, and long interventions do not assist.

Mr. Hurd: I feel sad for my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr.Gill) after his intervention. No, I am not responsible for what the German ambassador in Moscow says. I know what Chancellor Kohl says, and I have heard him say it more than once: he says that the old idea of a


united states of Europe is not worth pursuing and will not work. Germany does not have exactly the same views as us on the way in which Europe should proceed. However, the ideas that gradually nations in Europe will disappear, that gradually centralisation will assert itself until there is one Executive in Brussels and one Parliament in Strasbourg or Brussels, are finished. Those who used to advocate them are either silent or in a small minority. They certainly do not appear in the four applicant countries.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Hurd: No, I shall get on.
The four countries have proud Parliaments and strong traditions of legislative scrutiny. They will consider carefully the implications of proposed Community legislation before they vote on it. Once legislation is in place, we can expect them to be diligent in implementing and enforcing it.
By joining us, they will increase their own international standing and influence and ours. Norway, of course, is an old friend and an old ally in NATO. The accession of the four countries to the European Union should not affect the strong Atlantic ties in Norway. The other three countries have a long tradition of neutrality. They have said, however, that they will take their full part in shaping common foreign and security policies. Whether they decide to join the Western European Union, which they can do but do not have to do, is a matter for them. They might prefer the status of observer, as have Denmark and Ireland. That is a good example of the multitrack Europe of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have spoken recently.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Hurd: No, I shall get on.
All four states, in their different ways, are outward looking with strong records of contributing to peacekeeping and generous aid programmes. Of course, we shall not always agree with the new members on all subjects. I have usefully been reminded that they may be tempted to support measures under the social chapter that we reject. I suppose that that is possible.
I must say, however, that the tide of opinion in Europe—and elsewhere, but especially in Europe—is now blatantly beginning to flow strongly in favour of competitiveness and against over-regulation. If the four countries were to join in supporting measures under the social chapter, we should be even more grateful for the opt-out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obtained at Maastricht, which would protect us in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford would not be well advised to start opposing extension or enlargement of membership of the European Union because we shall not always agree with the views of those who join us.
There will be matters on which we differ occasionally, but having worked with my colleagues in the four applicant countries at the various meetings that they have attended in advance of enlargement, I do not doubt for a moment that the blend of enthusiasm and common sense that they bring to our discussions will strengthen the quality of the decisions that we take.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend safeguard himself against over-optimism? Will he tell us—yes or no

—whether the £300 million that he has said we might gain because of the proposed arrangement was estimated after or before the information that we received on Friday from the Treasury, which is in the Vote Office: namely, that our gross contribution in 1995 will increase by £2,000 million, which is £3 per week per family, and that agriculture expenditure will break through the legal barriers despite all the pledges and optimism, which I am sure my right hon. Friend entered into and displayed genuinely after the Edinburgh summit?

Mr. Hurd: I am writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the general point about our contribution. I was asked about the matter only the other day in that Select Committee and I promised to produce figures, which I have set out in a letter to my right hon. Friend.
I was talking in the context of the Bill. The figure that I gave was the amount by which our contribution would be less than it would have been if the new states—[Interruption.] That was the point that I was making in terms of the Bill. I was saying that our contribution would be substantially less by the figure I gave—£300 million over six years—because of enlargement.
There are other practical benefits. First, our agriculture exporters will benefit from the opening of the previously highly protected agriculture markets of the four applicant countries. Our fishermen will have new opportunities in Norwegian waters from 1997 onwards. Those who manufacture alcoholic drinks—I hope that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will listen to this—will benefit from the opening of Nordic markets and the dismantling of state monopolies. Our hauliers will benefit from increased access to the crucial Austrian market following agreement that our quota for terminating traffic will increase. Our oil industry—especially the offshore supplies industry—will benefit from Norwegian acceptance of the European Union rules. That should mean new contracts and new jobs. Many of those points will be of particular interest to Scottish Members.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Hurd: No. I have given way to the hon. Lady already and I shall not give way to her again.

Mrs. Ewing: My intervention will be on the points that the right hon. Gentleman has just made.

Mr. Hurd: No. I have already explained the benefits to Scottish fishermen that will flow from the arrangement.
I have no doubt that British business in the different sectors that I have mentioned will benefit—perhaps not hugely, but significantly—from enlargement. The significance of the arrangement goes wider than that, however. The accession of the four countries, with their strong democratic traditions, their prosperous economies, their international outlook and their commitment to an efficient and effective common-sense European Union, is a substantial step towards the outward-looking Europe that most people in Europe seek. It is a step towards dismantling the divisions of Europe, which belong to the cold-war era and which are out of date.
The enlargement will point the way towards closer links with the countries of central and eastern Europe and, indeed, their eventual accession to the European Union. We have believed very strongly, including those who have


been doubtful in the past about the course which the European Community—now the European Union—was taking, that it must be right for the European Union to keep its doors open to those who wish to join; that half Europe could not call itself the whole of Europe; and that where countries qualified, they should be allowed to enter.
Without any doubt, the four countries qualify. They are mature, established democracies. Indeed, it is patronising even to question that point. These countries have given Europe and the world many lessons in democracy and solid good sense. Having passed through intellectual changes as the world has changed around them, and as their security and economies are now on a different basis, they see that their future lies in full membership of the European Union.
We should welcome that, not because we will agree with them on every subject because of course we will not, but because the voices and interests that they bring and the contribution they will make to the future of the European Union will, I am sure, be abundantly worth while. I commend the Bill to the House.

5 pm

Dr. John Cunningham: It is a genuine pleasure to welcome the prospect of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden joining us as members of the European Union. Labour has long campaigned for their admission to the European Union. We made that commitment a long time ago and presented it to our conference in a policy statement last year. We reiterated our support for that goal in our European election manifesto which, as the House will recall, was massively endorsed by the people of this country on 9 June when we had a resounding victory, won the largest share of the vote and the greatest number of seats and made the most gains.
The Foreign Secretary did not find an opportunity to mention the European elections in his 35-minute speech and I am not surprised about that. He looked like a relieved man when he was eventually able to resume his seat having rediscovered the fault lines in his party.
The Foreign Secretary talked about earthquakes at the beginning of his speech. The biggest earthquake for the Foreign Secretary and his right hon. and hon. Friends was the result on 9 June—the worst performance by the Conservative party in any national election this century. Whatever else the Foreign Secretary can claim for his party's policies on Europe, he certainly cannot claim the endorsement of the people of this country.
That great victory for our policies, and those election results, give Labour a strong voice for Britain in Europe. We are the largest group in the European Parliament, with 62 Members. Our colleague Pauline Green has been elected overwhelmingly as leader of the socialist group, which is the most influential group in the Parliament. We hope that our friend and colleague Klaus Hänsch of the German SPD will soon be elected President of the Parliament. He has our wholehearted support.
We shall give all that power—[Interruption.] I am sure that I have the endorsement of the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We shall continue to use that power and influence in the European Parliament in support of our friends in Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden and we continue to work in the party of European socialists, of which I have the honour of being vice-president, to that end. There is emphatic support in that organisation for the four applicant countries. Austrian,

Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish social democrats are members of the party of European socialists. We have worked closely with them from the outset on their applications and we continue to do so.
We welcome four friends and countries with strong traditions of good government, and of strong social democratic government in many cases. Those countries regularly elect social democratic parties to govern their affairs. We welcome them also because at least three of them will be net contributors to the European Union budget. All four countries have good records on economic, social and environmental policy and all four are strong supporters of the social chapter. If their applications are successfully endorsed by their electorates, 15 out of 16 member states will strongly support a social dimension for the European Union. That is something that we, too, strongly endorse and which, I regret to say, further increases the isolation of the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in their mulish objections to policies which, despite their standing on the touchline in a petulant way, the other members of the European Union are determined to see through.

Mr. Hurd: They are not doing very much about it.

Dr. Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary spoke a moment too soon. He should read the newspapers. A report of a meeting this weekend under the new German presidency, chaired by Norbert Blüm, should be drawn to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. Norbert Blüm makes it absolutely clear that, during the German presidency, they intend to press ahead with the development and deepening of the social dimension of the European Union.
That is the trouble with Bonn, of course. We used to be told in briefings from 10 Downing street that Helmut and John were chums. It now looks more like, "Auf Wiedersehen Helmut, bon giorno, Silvio", despite the latter gentleman's tendency to work with neo-fascists in Italy. I say to the Foreign Secretary, as I have said before in this House and elsewhere, that the Opposition want to make it absolutely clear that we want nothing to do with emerging fascism in Europe, whether inside the European Union or outside it. It is about time the Foreign Secretary made his own position, and that of his party, clear on that subject.

Mr. Hurd: There is a coalition in Italy which hosted the recent summit. There were several Ministers there, some from one party and some from another. All were freely and democratically elected, and all were elected on a particular programme which I do not think contains any elements of fascism. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that a Labour Government would not work with that Italian Government? I cannot believe that that is the case. No other Government in Europe are taking that view. Is that a view that the right hon. Gentleman would urge upon us? It makes no sense at all.

Dr. Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary is wriggling. He is avoiding the question and obfuscating the issue. I did not say that we would not work with an Italian Government. I said that we would not work with neo-fascists if they were part of one.
We have made our position clear in respect of the growth of right-wing extremism right across the European Union—in France, in Germany and, for that matter, here in London. We are implacably opposed to those people at


every level. That is one reason why, in the face of the growth of fascism, xenophobia and racial intolerance in Europe, we have been calling for the designation of a Commissioner to deal with racial equality in Europe. It is also a reason why we shall continue to press for legislation on racial equality in the European Union.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is moving off into total generalities. Is he advising Her Majesty's Government to boycott and have no dealings with the present Italian Government with their present composition?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I am advising the Foreign Secretary to have nothing to do with the neo-fascist members of that Government. That is no switch. It is exactly what I said at the outset.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I will give way in a moment.
We were talking about the Secretary of State's unfounded sedentary intervention that no progress will be made on social agenda policies in Europe.

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: Not for the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman's statement is a flat contradiction of all the evidence, including the most recent from the German presidency. The social dimension in Europe will continue to become more significant whether the right hon. Gentleman and his friends like it or not. If they want to continue to put their heads in the sand on this issue, let them do so, but they are not fooling the House or the people of Britain. They are fooling no one by trying to argue that the rest of Europe is coming round to their way of thinking. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support that vacuous assertion.

Mr. Budgen: If one Government were negotiating with another Government, could the right hon. Gentleman please explain the practicalities of how it would be possible for the British Government to say to the Italian Government, "We are prepared to talk to one Minister, but we are not prepared to talk to another"? How could that be done?

Dr. Cunningham: Quite easily, because we would make it clear that we would not be willing to participate in discussions with fascists. It is as simple and straightforward as that. It is interesting to note that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches apparently feel quite comfortable with the idea of sitting down and working with fascists. They seem quite relaxed about that, but they should think about past failures. The Foreign Secretary gave a little history lesson at the outset of his speech, but he seems to have forgotten past failures to confront fascism.
The European Union has changed and is continuing to change. The Opposition want that process to continue. This is the fourth wave of enlargement to which we look forward. If all four applicants are successful, one of the world's largest trading areas, with an estimated output of almost $7,000 billion, will be created. The accession treaty agreed in March 1994, and signed by Heads of State and Government in Corfu, would become, for British

constitutional purposes, one of the Community treaties, as defined in the section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Bill will amend that Act to take account of the accession treaty and make the necessary changes in United Kingdom law.
As with the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Bill is—potentially, at least—amendable, but any amendment incompatible with the accession treaty could prevent United Kingdom ratification of the proposal. Such amendments will therefore not have the support of the Opposition. We do not wish to take any action that would impede the Bill's safe and swift passage. The Opposition, at least, want to ensure that we do nothing to prevent Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden from becoming members of the European Union. We will do nothing that might jeopardise the referendums that will have to take place in three of those four countries. We applaud the huge success of Chancellor Vranitzky's campaign for a yes vote in the Austrian referendum and we hope that that success will be repeated in the other three applicant countries.

Sir Teddy Taylor: To avoid confusion in the referendums, was not the right hon. Gentleman a bit unfair to the Conservative Government in what he said about the social chapter? Has it not been made abundantly clear by the German presidency and by officials of the Commission that almost all of the social chapter will go through under laws related to health and safety in the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome? There will not be any problem about that and we shall all have to abide by those horrible social chapter laws whether we like it or not.

Dr. Cunningham: I agree in large measure with the hon. Gentleman. If anyone has any doubts about the intention of the German presidency, I refer him to David Gardner's report from Dortmund, which appeared on the front page of this morning's edition of the Financial Times.
The Austrian Chancellor, Franz Vranitzky, has stressed that Austria's application has been determined by the importance of finding common answers to the economic, social, political and ecological issues that face us all. He cited the safeguarding of Europe's competitiveness in world markets as the foremost challenge of the future. We endorse his views. Europe faces common problems such as the securing of jobs, the prevention of unemployment, the prevention of ecological disasters—which, of course, recognise no boundaries—and the political and economic stabilisation of eastern Europe. We also face the common problem posed by the migration of displaced people as a result of tragedies such as that suffered in the former Yugoslavia. Those common, shared problems demand shared solutions and a common approach.
The arguments about joining the Union differ in the four applicant countries, although the respective social democratic parties share those Austrian objectives. The Finnish President has called the European Union
The central factor in strengthening the security of our continent.
As the Foreign Secretary said, that represents a major change in that country's stance.
In Sweden, where we hope that our great friend and colleague Ingvar Carlsson will soon return to power as the head of a Social Democratic Labour Government—the general election comes before the referendum—concern has been expressed that its high standards of social and environmental protection will be weakened as a result of


membership of the European Union. The Swedes do not share the Foreign Secretary's view of the future of the European Union. They want to see increasingly high standards of social provision and environmental protection imposed. They also share the Opposition's view about the unnecessarily secretive nature of decision taking in the Council of Ministers and in the Commission. The social democrats in Sweden, under whose leadership the original application was made, voted at their party congress on 19 June in favour of recommending that their colleagues should back the application for membership of the Union in the forthcoming referendum.

Mr. Spearing: We all admire the social provision in Sweden to which my right hon. Friend referred and the support given to it by our friend, who we hope will soon be Prime Minister of Sweden. The Union and the Community do not prohibit the adoption of higher standards than those applied in the Union being written into a member state's national law, if that country so wishes. Would that not automatically put that country at an economic disadvantage in trade in the single market? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that should be borne in mind?

Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure that I even followed my hon. Friend's argument, let alone agreed with it.
Competition and productivity have far more to do with per capita investment, plant and equipment, education, training and skills than with employment protection or hourly rates of pay. The idea that we can compete with our major competitors in Europe, the Pacific rim, Japan or the United States on the basis of poverty pay—the thesis advanced by the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues—is one that we reject totally. It is not supported by any economic, industrial or social evidence. The right hon. Gentleman knows that.
Great concerns have been expressed in Norway about membership of the European Union, but I hope that the decision of our colleagues in the social democratic party to recommend that their supporters should vote yes in the referendum will eventually lead to all four applicant countries receiving the endorsement of their populations so that they can take their place in the expanded Union in 1995.

Mr. Roger Knapman: The right hon. Gentleman sets great store by those referendums. Last year we were not allowed a referendum because, we were told, it would weaken our system of parliamentary democracy. Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that parliamentary democracy has been weakened in Denmark, Norway or other countries that have held referendums?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. Britain had a referendum in 1975, provided for by the then Labour Government. I am not in the least defensive about referendums. The whole country decided, in a once-and-for-all referendum in 1975, about Britain's membership of the then European Community. In reality, however, those once-and-for-all decisions are never accepted by those who do not win the argument and who therefore want yet more referendums.

Mr. Hurd: How did the right hon. Gentleman vote?

Dr. Cunningham: I voted yes. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not slither this way and that on the

European Union. He favours the hokey-kokey approach to membership of the European Union—in, out, in, out, shake it all about.
In his speech, the Foreign Secretary mentioned consistency. The Tory party manifesto says:
The Conservative Party has remained steadfast on Europe".
It is interesting to examine that claim in this context. Incidentally, during the European election campaign I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman about that matter, but he never replied to my letter and nor did the Prime Minister.
In answer to a question in this House, the Foreign Secretary said that it would be a disaster not only for this country but for Greece, where he had discussed the matter, for Portugal and Spain and for many other countries, if there were a two-speed Europe. Yet we are told that the right hon. Gentleman is the architect of a multi-speed, multi-layered, multi-track Europe.
In November 1990, the Prime Minister said:
I don't want a two speed Europe. I think a two speed Europe is unequivocally bad for Europe.
At the conclusion of the European summit in Birmingham, after the British presidency, the Prime Minister said:
No fast track, no slow track, no one left behind, that was a constant theme
at the Birmingham summit.
During the European election campaign, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister referred to:
a sensible approach, varying when it needs to, multi-track, multi-speed, multi-layered. It is a Conservative idea".
How dare the Foreign Secretary conclude that hon. Members have such short memories and that the people of this country forget so quickly the promises and commitments solemnly given in the House of Commons and at European summits about their approach to the European Union? In a desperate attempt to cling on to votes at any price, the Foreign Secretary abandoned all his long-held principles on Europe, whereas I never have. I therefore claim to have shown constant support for the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman used to be able to make such a claim, but he abandoned it for political expediency during last month's elections.

Mr. Hurd: This will not do. In the 1960s, the Labour party was against membership of Europe. When Lord Wilson was Prime Minister, the Labour party moved in favour. When he left office, having tried unsuccessfully to negotiate membership, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) successfully negotiated membership, Labour turned against. When it was returned to office, it was in favour, although mildly so—that was the time of the referendum. After that, it passed under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and was passionately against. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have not followed the right hon. Gentleman's gyrations during that time, but those are the changes about which he challenged me and I am answering the challenge. He cannot speak on behalf of his party on that subject.

Dr. Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary is wriggling. He asked me about my personal position. I told him about that, and then told him about his record. He is now trying to transpose the argument into one about parties. It would be ridiculous to pretend that the Labour party had not changed on Europe, but the right hon. Gentleman asked me about my position and I told him unequivocally what it was


and is. His problem is that he cannot say the same about his own position. Indeed, he can say nothing consistent about Europe at all.
Last July in Oxford the Secretary of State for Employment, speaking about the Conservative party and the European People's Party, said:
As the union between the peoples of Europe inch by questioning inch grows ever closer, we will need to look for new alliances. I believe that political and ideological alliances between like-minded parties from different countries will soon come to complement or supplant old national rivalries and friendships. Our admittance to the European People's Party in the European Parliament puts that scenario into perspective. There is, even now, a European People's Party office at Smith Square.
During the European elections, the Foreign Secretary sought to deny that there was a connection between the Conservative party and the European People's party. The Secretary of State for the Environment rose to his aid and said:
We are entirely enthusiastic about the EU. We want Europe to grow in unity".
The problem is that they are "entirely enthusiastic" about it at different speeds, on different layers and on different tracks. That is the governing party's position on Europe.
It may seem amusing to expose in this Chamber the shifts in the plates which the Foreign Secretary mentioned—the tectonic slipping and the fault lines—but they do massive and enduring damage to this country's interests and standing in the European Union and we all pay a heavy price as a result.

Mr. Dykes: The House will accept that the right hon. Gentleman has good credentials from that point of view. But will he comment on the Home Secretary's interesting letter in The Times on Thursday, in which he reminded us that it is shocking to recall that as recently as 1983 the putative new leader of the Labour party, in his own election address, called for withdrawal from the European Community?

Dr. Cunningham: Parliamentary candidates often go with their party line. After all, it is much easier to roll rocks downhill against one's opponents than uphill against one's party. But if we are talking about political judgments along the way, the Foreign Secretary, not as a young parliamentary candidate but as a mature Cabinet Minister, supported the poll tax—£14 billion down the drain; he overruled his accounting officer and gave between £200 million and £300 million to the Pergau dam project; and he gives visas to visiting Iraqi businessmen to meet his friends Lord Weinstock and Lord Prior, in spite of the United Nations' embargo on trade with Iraq. The judgment of someone who has been in high office for many years does not compare with someone standing in a parliamentary election for the first time.

Mr. Dykes: But someone who wants to be Prime Minister.

Dr. Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary once wanted to be Prime Minister, too. I am not surprised that he did not get far.
While we are discussing enlargement and consistency, I invite the Foreign Secretary to explain the Government's exact position on the application of Cyprus. Their manifesto—and I have a copy of it here—says that they

will help Cyprus and Malta to prepare to realise their ambition of European Union membership. In December 1993, the Minister of State said in the House:
I should also remind him"—
referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright)—
that the partition of the island is not a prohibition on eventual accession."—[Official Report, 15 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 1054.]
We share that view. Indeed, we think that membership of the European Union will be part of the solution to the illegal occupation of the island.
On 27 June, in his report on the European Council in Corfu, the Prime Minister said:
Certainly, if the dispute between the north and the south is unresolved, it will be extremely difficult for Cyprus to be admitted to the Community…we hope that that dispute will be resolved before it is possible for Cyprus to become a member of the Union."—[Official Report, 27 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 567.]
That contradicts what the Minister of State said. As ever, we would like a straight answer. Will Her Majesty's Government go ahead now and actively support the earliest possible accession of Cyprus to the European Union, as we intend to do, using our strength and influence in the European Parliament to pursue that objective?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has passed from the puerile to a serious point which must be dealt with seriously. Of course my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right—the existence of the dispute makes it very difficult. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks of the practical implications of admitting to full membership a country as divided as Cyprus, he must see that it is very difficult. We want to remove those difficulties; we want to see Cyprus admitted. That is one reason—though not the only reason—why we, perhaps more than any other outside country, are working so hard to find a solution. But we are involved. The Prime Minister was party to the statement issued at the Corfu summit which said that in our view Cyprus and Malta would be involved in the next round of enlargement. One cannot say more than that at present. Our attitude is a positive one—to remove the obstacles to the accession of Cyprus. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that is a fair statement.

Dr. Cunningham: I am little wiser than I was before because the right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that
our attitude is a positive one—to remove the obstacles".
The obstacle has been there for 20 years. This year is the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's claims, there is no sign that the Government's active work to resolve the problem is having any effect at all. Indeed, we received alarming reports from our colleagues who visited Cyprus that that active work included Her Majesty's Government's representatives encouraging people to visit north Cyprus, which we do not recognise as a legal entity. We are not very happy about that either. So the Government have a lot to do to convince us that they are genuinely and wholeheartedly backing the accession of Cyprus to membership of the European Union, as, indeed, we are ourselves.
In 1996, there will be an important intergovernmental conference of the new and, I hope, expanded European Union. Among other things, the Maastricht treaty provides for revision of the pillar structure, widening the scope of the co-decision procedure, revision of common foreign and security decisions, including consideration of defence issues and whether the Union should absorb the Western


European Union, whether to introduce specific titles in the treaty to cover civil protection in energy and tourism, the hierarchy and classification of Community legislation and, of course, the whole vexed question of institutional reform.
Let me say clearly and unequivocally that we stand for a Europe of nation states. We do not support a federal Europe, as the right hon. Gentleman wrongly asserted many times and the Conservative central office hand-outs lied time and again during the European election campaign. Nor do we have any intention of abandoning Britain's right of veto. I say that so that the right hon. Gentleman hears it again from me at the Dispatch Box, as he has heard before, in the hope that from now on he will not continue to repeat falsehoods about Labour party policy as, regrettably, he has done in the past.

Mr. Marlow: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain his party's attitude to, first, deepening and, secondly, the Luxembourg compromise? What is the Labour party's attitude to deepening? What does it mean? What is the right hon. Gentleman's understanding of the Luxembourg compromise? Does it still exist?

Dr. Cunningham: There is some dispute as to whether the Luxembourg compromise still exists as a legal entity. But as Governments assert that it still exists, and we see no reason to dispute that, the answer is yes. As for deepening of the Community, we are in favour of some deepening of the Community, as we have made clear time and again in relation to the social chapter. We regard the European Union as more than a market and a free trade area.
We have made it clear—as, incidentally, did Lord Howe and Baroness Chalker—that in some areas there is scope for an extension of qualified majority voting on social and employment policy and on the environment, to give two examples. That is apparently another area where there seems to be some difference of opinion in the Government. In 1986, in this House, Baroness Chalker said:
Some have implied that there is majority voting against United Kingdom interests…We cannot criticise the Community for its inability to take decisions, while, on the other hand, we refuse to allow practical improvements that could well assist us".—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 391.]
Of course, she was talking about qualified majority voting, which was massively extended as right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches guillotined the Single European Act through the House. I hope that we shall have no more of that nonsense in the future. [Interruption.] I think that we all know who the arch-villain was—the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen).

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: No, I am not giving way any more.
We support the Bill because, above all else, it embodies our consistent policy on enlargement and our support for our friends in Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden. I hope that the whole House will support the Bill and that it can be agreed without a Division. If there is a Division, I shall vote for enlargement and for the legislation, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same.

Sir Peter Hordern: I was glad to hear that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and his party will support the Bill; I do not think that that has come as any surprise. However, I noticed that he said

that the reason why he was anxious to do so was that those countries are his political friends. The House must have noted the difference between the way in which he referred to those countries and the way in which he previously referred to Italy and the Italian Government.
It is a most extraordinary constitutional pronouncement that one can pick and choose the Ministers in the Italian Government with whom one will negotiate. I must say that to the right hon. Gentleman, because it is the most extraordinary attitude to have. Let us suppose that the Labour party were to win the next election and that it then signed up to the social chapter. Are we seriously to believe that the Social Security Minister would decline to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers because an Italian Minister whom he calls a neo-fascist was attending? Such a suggestion is totally ludicrous.

Dr. John Cunningham: I do not call those people neo-fascists: they call themselves that—that is the point.

Sir Peter Hordern: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would like to answer.

Mr. Hurd: The people to whom the right hon. Gentleman may be referring are part of the Alleanza Nazionale and are hence part of the Italian Government. Is he advising Her Majesty's Ministers to boycott all meetings in which Ministers of that party participate?

Sir Peter Hordern: I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Copeland if he wants to make his position clear. Certainly, he was making a most extraordinary constitutional pronouncement, which showed yet again that the Labour party is wholly unfit for government; its members cannot even understand basic constitutional points.
I unreservedly welcome the accession of Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway, all of which will be net contributors to the budget. That has greater appeal, perhaps, to Conservatives than to Labour Members—we are always likely to give a much warmer welcome to countries that will make it less expensive for us to belong to the EU.
However, the accession of those four countries raises serious problems for the future, and I want to say a little about the problems that will face the intergovernmental conference of 1996. For a start, each country will have one new Commissioner, bringing the total to 21, and the Council of Ministers will also be enlarged. I understand that the inclusion of the four will allow eight countries representing only 12 per cent. of the European Union population to block the wishes of eight countries representing 88 per cent. of it. That is clearly a serious matter that will have to be dealt with in the course of the IGC.
It is most unlikely that we shall all agree on every proposal coming before the Commission. With the enlargement that the new accession produces, there will be a need to enforce subsidiarity and to use the opt-out whenever necessary. I am glad to welcome the ideas of variable geometry, a multi-speed Europe and so on, all of which arrive at the same point: that we reserve the right to preserve our national interests whenever we see them at risk.
I offer one or two examples of the difficulties that may be created. The common agricultural policy is a case in point. I understand that in Austria, Norway and Finland


national agricultural prices are higher than they are in the CAP, and that those countries have been allowed additional national aids—described as temporary—to enable them to adjust their prices to the common European level. It is in our interest and in that of Germany to reduce the cost of the CAP, but it will be in the interests of the Scandinavian countries, and of France and the Mediterranean countries, to keep the CAP prices high. Of course the whole process is controlled by the budget, but strains on it have increased and will increase and must be most carefully curtailed. That matter, too, will come up in 1996.

Mr. Gill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, before this association agreement, the Swedish Government had agreed a new scheme of agricultural support that would have had the effect of reducing the cost of such support in Sweden but, as a result of the accession treaty, the costs will rise again?

Sir Peter Hordern: I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend has it right. I understood that Sweden met the terms of the treaty right away, but was going to be given some monetary compensation for so doing—but I am not sure.
The point is that the CAP is bound to be placed under further strain when and if Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic join in the next century. The arguments against the CAP have been rehearsed often enough, but the idea that it should help agricultural communities, not agricultural products, is surely the right way forward. That is best done by national Governments; otherwise, how are we to pay for the huge surpluses that will be produced by Polish and Hungarian agriculture at prices necessary to accommodate Norwegian and Finnish farmers? Those problems loom large for the IGC in 1996.
Then there are problems with convergence. The costs of convergence are difficult enough in the present EU, but how great would they be if it included Poland, Hungary and the Czechs? It is quite unnecessary to achieve convergence by Government-to-Government transfer. Anyone who examines the substantial investments in Thailand and Malaysia by the Japanese will observe that they are not Government-to-Government transfers; they simply occur because the costs of labour and skills make Malaysia and Thailand attractive to Japanese investors.

Mr. Budgen: If we roundly declared that we wanted nothing to do with the single currency, we would not need to worry about the enormous cost and distortion brought about by so-called convergence.

Sir Peter Hordern: If my hon. Friend will contain himself, I shall come to the single currency question.
It is possible that limited infrastructure projects, if cost effective, are necessary, but we need to be clear about our own interests. I take them to be that we are part of a European Union that is committed to free trade and to GATT in particular. We are also committed to further enlargement of the EU beyond what is envisaged in the Bill, but there is, and always has been, a political element in the European Union. I cannot accept, after all the sacrifices that our country has made in two world wars, that anything but relief and satisfaction are to be found in the closer union between France and Germany. We cannot wish it away.
I hope and trust that we shall find that that closer union is here to stay. I do not draw comfort, although some apparently do, from the prospect of a newly unified Germany operating on its own to its own agenda, and I cannot believe that the French, the Russians or the Poles do either. All those countries want a closer union in which the interests of Germany are inextricably linked with those of the rest of the European Union.
We must not be surprised, still less angered, by serious attempts to weld the European Union together by supranational institutions to form a single currency. After all, we have an opt-out of, or rather, an opt-into, the single currency. Some, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), simply wish the whole thing would go away, but it will not go away, and we must face up to that fact.
It seems to me probable that France, Germany and the Netherlands will meet the Maastricht criteria and will in due course form a single currency, probably by the end of the century. Austria, and possibly the Scandinavian countries too, may also meet the criteria and join. This country will then be faced with a clear choice of whether or not to join.
We certainly want to meet the Maastricht criteria on prudential grounds alone—nothing to do with the single currency. Let us then suppose that we meet the criteria but a future Parliament decides not to join. Can we imagine that the greater part of our businesses and industry, which carry out their business in the single market, would not decide to transact that business in the European market using the ecu? They would be perfectly entitled to do so. They would simply vote with their feet and do their business in the single currency, just as the oil industry has always done its business in dollars—except that in this case it would probably be done in the hard ecu. We must come to terms with Europe as it is and as it is bound to be, not as some would wish it to be.
I see nothing wrong with an evolutionary path to a single currency by way of a de facto common currency. That is how I think it will be. Monetary union leading to political union in the sense of a federal European union is nonsense.

Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend will recall a letter that he wrote to The Times two or three years ago in which he advocated the virtues of a single currency. Does he still advocate that as a matter of principle, contrary to some 70 per cent. of business men in Germany who, according to a recent opinion poll, do not want a single currency? Does he believe that a single currency would be advantageous to the political situation in Europe as it evolves, as he put it?

Sir Peter Hordern: I am immensely flattered that my hon. Friend should remember what I wrote to The Times three years ago. He remembers it better than I do. At that time I was certainly in favour of Britain joining the ERM with a strong currency and I still hold that view. However, as my hon. Friend has heard, we must look at the way in which events are likely to move. There is likely to be a partial single currency and in practical terms many of our business men will wish to conduct their business in that currency. Therefore, it will be formed into a common currency.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Hordern: I shall give way for the last time because many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute.

Mr. Marlow: I think that my right hon. Friend is talking about the possibility of a de facto common currency, but not a single currency. Does he agree that a single currency is not so much a matter of commercial convenience but that it effectively means a single European state, a single European economy and a single European Government?

Sir Peter Hordern: I am coming to those very points. My hon. Friend is right: what is more likely to happen is that our country will be involved in a common currency. However, that is a matter of opinion. As I have said, monetary union necessarily leading to political union in the sense of a federal European Union, to which my hon. Friend referred, is nonsense. For example, we have only to look at the United States where virtually every state has a different sales tax. There are widely differing forms of tax and even wider differences in social benefits. We do not have to have a common system of social benefits or a social chapter to form a closer European Union.
As I mentioned earlier, investment gravitates to those states with lower taxes, and the same would apply here. We have done well. By having a low tax system we have been able to attract much investment, and I see no reason to give up that advantage. We should not accept for a moment the myth that monetary union necessarily leads to political union. Equally, we should certainly not accept the myth that sterling has always stood on its own, disregarding entirely our link to the gold standard which we had for centuries and to the dollar which we had under Bretton Woods.
I foresee the time when, whatever we may wish, there will be a strong single currency at the heart of Europe which will act as a common currency for the rest of Europe, including ourselves. I do not believe in a federal Europe, by which I mean the sole or main power to raise taxes resting in a single European Parliament. Nothing can persuade us that the essence of democracy is not to identify as closely as possible democratic institutions with the people in a way that enables them to understand, accept and approve of what is done. That means national Governments with the principal power to tax. The low turnout in the European parliamentary elections, not just in our country but throughout the European Union, should be a lesson to us all.
The Bill broadens the European Union to take in those countries which have long been democracies and of which we wholly approve. It also provides us with an opportunity to think of what will happen in the European Union, of which we are an important part. To be a positive European does not mean to favour a federal Europe. I like the prospect of closer union between France and Germany and between all other European countries because that means peace and not war.
I am also a positive European because I like the prospects for Britain in Europe. I certainly see better opportunities for trade and business, but I also see us using our influence to reform the European Union in the direction of an outward-looking community of nations that is better able to deal with the United States and Japan than we possibly could on our own. Above all, we have no need to be frightened of Europe or to be constantly negative. Perhaps we will go at our own speed and no doubt our

geometry will vary from that of others, but we are part of Europe and always have been, and we might as well be positive about its future.

Mr. Peter Shore: The speech by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) was addressed to his party rather to the House as a whole. His remarks about a common currency as distinct from a single currency were sensible and reassuring. I do not think that any hon. Member would object to the emergence of a further, as it were, reserve currency or common currency of the kind or of the practical use that resulted from using the dollar in post-war periods, gold before the second world war and, indeed, sterling up to about the late 1960s.
A common currency gives us the freedom to operate with our own currency, except where it is clearly advantageous to operate with a different one. As the right hon. Member for Horsham correctly reminded us, oil trade has been carried on in dollars for a long time, certainly for as long as I can remember. That is perfectly sensible and has caused us no damage.
If we accept even the principle of the currency following trade, we all know that, although our trade with Europe has grown enormously through trade diversion and the coming together of the economies, it is still less than half our total trade. The logic of what the right hon. Gentleman said is that the other half ought to be conducted either in our own currency or in somebody else's which is a suitable common currency. That was all rather refreshing, and tomorrow I shall study the right hon. Gentleman's speech with great care.
I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has disappeared, because I have a few remarks to address to him. His optimism never ceases to amaze me. He really believes that Europe is developing along the ways and paths that he would like to see it pursue. To cite the treaty of accession which is the subject of our debate as evidence of the European Community's abandonment of centralisation, of deepening and consolidating and centralising in favour of widening, was a remarkable example of the Foreign Secretary's almost infinite capacity for self-deception.
This is a three-clause Bill. European Community Bills are always short, but they carry with them an enormous load of text. In this case the three clauses conceal about 365 pages of the treaties. We are dealing with Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway. In a way, it may be a little premature to approve or disapprove of the Bill because, as we all know, apart from Austria, the other three countries mentioned in the accession treaty have yet to hold referendums. I have no serious doubts that Finland will vote positively in a referendum, but it is sensible to put a considerable question mark over Sweden and Norway.
Those of us whose memories go back to at least 1972 will recall that Norway reached this same point on the road to joining the European Community, but the people of Norway asserted that their view was different from that of those who negotiated on their behalf. In the referendum then held in Norway, the people decisively rejected the proposal for entry. If that happens again, there will have to be changes in some crucial paragraphs of the treaty, because it is obviously based upon the assumption that four countries will join.
I have always thought that the great discussion about the blocking minimum and so on was, to say the least, rather premature. It is not clear what benefits the applicant countries hope to gain through membership, beyond those that they already have as members of the European economic zone. Indeed, I can envisage considerable disadvantages, especially now that the earlier obligations of joining the European Community have been added to by the many and much more difficult commitments contained in the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the 385 pages—I hate to correct him, but he said 365 pages—of the treaty. On page 9, it talks about qualified majority voting, to which he has just referred. It says that qualified majority voting will require
64 votes in favour, cast by at least 11 members.
If, under the procedures, Norway or Norway and Sweden do not join, the Council will look at the matter again and come forward with decisions. Those decisions have to be taken by unanimity. Suppose those two countries vote no and decide not to join the Union. As long as there is no unanimity, one presumes that a qualified majority will be 64 votes and 11 member states. Is that correct?

Mr. Shore: I am not sure about that, but it is a question that could quite properly be addressed to the Government. I should be interested to hear the reply. What I am saying is that there are possible complexities ahead that were not entirely dealt with in the Foreign Secretary's speech.
Of course, it is the peoples of the applicant countries who decide. From a purely selfish British point of view, I would welcome their adherence—in particular, that of Finland, Sweden and Norway. They have a powerful social democratic tradition, which I share, and their histories of robust independence give me the strong sense that they will be potential allies in the forthcoming struggles between those who wish to achieve a minimum Europe of national states and those who seek to secure a maximum Europe of a neo-federalist character.
My feeling is that—although we cannot be certain about it—the instincts of such sturdy, independent people will place them on our side in many of the arguments that lie ahead.

Mr. Cash: Is there not another agenda here, which is the possibility of a German Europe? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, as many countries do privately, that that is the direction in which we are moving? The recent Karlsruhe court judgment said that there should be not a Bundestat but a Staatenverbund. That is quite different, one being a federal Europe and the other a confederation. Since that judgment, the Christian Democrat party has now reverted to the idea of a federal Europe and Bundestat, and so has its partner, the FDP. In other words, we need to beware.

Mr. Shore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I shall say something later about recent trends in opinions and proposals coming out of Germany that are of concern for the 1996 intergovernmental conference.
The immediate issue that the accession treaty has posed to us and other Community members is the voting formula to be used for qualified majority voting. At present, the

blocking minority is 23 out of a total of 76 votes. In future, despite the Prime Minister's almost embarrassingly unsuccessful efforts at the last minute to avert it, the blocking minority will be 27 out of a total of 90 votes. I know that it is also agreed that best endeavours must be made where the blocking minority falls between 23 and 27, but best endeavours are not a strong line of defence against the minimum blocking vote of 27 in the treaty.
What worries me is not just the increased size of the blocking minority, but the fact that so much emphasis has been placed on a blocking minority. I take it to mean that in practice, although not verbally, the Luxembourg compromise of the famous national veto is falling into disuse. There is a lack of self-confidence in member Governments to assert that they have a veto and will use it.
I say that with the utmost regret because I well remember the document in the referendum of 1975 issued by the then Government. It recommended a yes vote on the basis that, under the heading
Will Parliament lose its Power?",
there was the assurance:
It is the Council of Ministers and not the market's officials who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests.
That was the basis of that referendum, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) promises never to hold again, because that referendum settled matters once and for all. That is not easy to square with the fact that the referendum on Scottish devolution was rejected, yet we are committed to having another one, which, if it is accepted by the Scottish people, presumably we will accept.
The veto power was guaranteed to the British people as a condition of their assent through the referendum in 1975 to Britain remaining part of the European Community. It matters very much, because it is part of the faith that should exist between Government and people. The Government should mean what they say and abide by their commitments.

Dr. John Cunningham: My right hon. Friend and I take different positions on this matter. The Labour party's policy position does not rule out referendums, depending on what may emerge either on the question of 1996 and the intergovernmental conference or on other matters. I was referring to the referendum that gave the British people the choice to say whether or not Britain should stay in the European Union. My right hon. Friend may think that that question should be put to the people every two, three, four or five years. I do not agree with him. The people were given the opportunity to make a decision, and they did so overwhelmingly.

Mr. Shore: I accept what my right hon. Friend says up to a point, which is that the referendum was about membership of the European Economic Community, not membership of the European Union with its far more extravagant ambitions. I take it that my right hon. Friend has at least given me a partial reassurance that he would not necessarily oppose a new referendum on proposals for ever closer union within the European Union.

Dr. Cunningham: I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend again that that is the position. Throughout the


European election campaign, we made it absolutely clear—I said it myself on many occasions, and I am happy to say it again on the record—that it is not ruled in or out.

Mr. Shore: I am especially pleased that my right hon. Friend has said on the record that the Labour party is opposed to a federal Europe, and that it will abide by and hold on to such use of the veto power as is contained in the unanimity provisions of the treaty of Rome. Good, we are making progress.

Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman said that the fact that the veto was slipping into desuetude was due to a lack of self-confidence among member countries. We could also argue that it was due to a reduction in obduracy and an increase in consensual decision making.

Mr. Shore: To be fair, there is another and much more important cause. Given Lady Thatcher's general attitude towards the European Union and British sovereignty, it is curious that, when Prime Minister, through signing the Single European Act she opened the way for qualified majority voting on a much larger scale than had ever previously been envisaged. I know that that is a difficult fact for many Conservative Members to accept and acknowledge. Nevertheless, that is why so much was abandoned in the use of the national veto under the Luxembourg compromise formula.
The issue of qualified majority voting, the blocking minimum and the veto is of growing importance, not less. I say that for two reasons, First, we all hope that this treaty of accession will be followed by further accession treaties in which, in the first place, the Visegrad countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia—will join, and there may well be others after that. If every new accession brings further adjustment to the voting formula and weakens our capacity to safeguard our interests—particularly against the thrust of Euro-federalism—we will not easily accept or stomach that. That is cause for considerable concern.
We are already on the road to the next IGC in 1996—a commitment that is part of the Maastricht treaty. We cannot be sure how far-reaching and wide-ranging that conference will be, but we know that article B of the Maastricht treaty identifies in particular the common foreign and security pillar and the justice and home affairs pillar. It states:
the policies and forms of co-operation introduced by this, treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community.
Article N of the Maastricht treaty states:
a conference of representatives of the governments of Member States ... shall be convened
in 1996. We know what lies ahead, and we may be certain that we shall have a traumatic time beating off the Euro-federalists in that conference.
There is only a short breathing space. At the meetings in Ioannina and Corfu, it was decided to establish a so-called reflection committee. A communiqué issued after the recent Corfu summit referred to
a Reflection Group consisting of representatives of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Member States and the President of the Commission. It will be chaired by a person appointed by the Spanish government and begin its work in June 1995. Two European Parliament representatives will participate in the work of the Reflection Group. The Group will also have exchanges of views with the other institutions and organs of the European Union.

For some of us, 1995 is not far ahead but-wait for it-action is starting earlier than that. The communiqué continued:
The Institutions are invited to establish before the start of the work of the Reflection Group reports on the functioning of the Treaty of European Union, which will provide an input for the work of the Group.
Some ambitious proposals are being thought out and framed. I refer to only one set—which comes, of course, from Germany. Proposals from Herr Bitterlich, who I understand is Chancellor Kohl's personal foreign policy adviser, came out of a think tank associated with the Bertelsmann Foundation. The Financial Times had this to say about them:
In a report which reflects widespread thinking at the highest levels of the German government, the group spelt out proposals for a bi-cameral system which would put the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers on an equal footing.
A lower chamber and upper chamber of a legislature is how they see the future of the Council of Ministers.
A report in The Guardian added that the President of the Commission would be nominated and elected by Members of the European Parliament and would be empowered to appoint Commissioners to a reduced number of posts—a kind of Cabinet. The report added:
The commission would take on the hue of a European government.
I am not saying that that is necessarily the sole or most strongly backed proposal that will come before us in 1996, but some powerful pro-federal forces remain unchecked in Europe. They have been buried in the institutions of the European Parliament, and they are embedded in the whole structure and ethos of the Commission, the European Court, and the hearts and minds of the ruling political classes of many countries of continental Europe. We must be ready for a prolonged and difficult struggle.
If the Foreign Secretary were right about the success of British ideas and how subsidiarity and all the other British intergovernmental arrangements have carried the field in Europe, we could relax. It is simply because the Foreign Secretary has got it so wrong that we must be on our guard and prepare for a bitter fight between now and the end of 1996. That is the task ahead.

Mr. John Biffen: The speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) reminded us that the virus of scepticism is not confined to these Benches. What was particularly attractive was his exchange with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), which authorised with the strength of Labour's Front Bench that Labour is hostile to a federal Europe, is in favour of a Europe of nation states and argues for the maintenance of our national veto. After a while, I began to wonder what, as time unfolds, Labour will supply to the European debate that is distinctive.
Mercifully, the right hon. Member for Copeland pre-empted my anxieties in that respect. Labour would take into the Union its time-honoured characteristic of proscription. Every party and every Government would be tested to see if they passed Labour's good housekeeping arrangements. The question was raised of the Italian Government. Let us not be delicate. The right hon. Member for Copeland did not mean that he would refuse to sit down and share spaghetti with Signor Berlusconi. It is Signor Fini about whom the right hon. Gentleman has great reservations.
I challenge the right hon. Member for Copeland to name the name that gives rise to the proposition that there are Ministers in the Italian Government with whom a Labour Government would have no contact. That is no way for a potential Government to behave towards European Union partners. If the Union cannot inspire some sense of tolerance, it will never have any chance of longer success.
I do not regard the exchange earlier today as flippant July madness. The assertion that there are Ministers in the present Italian Government with whom members of a Labour Government would be unwilling to co-operate is an indication that Labour is taking into the Union a sectarian attitude to its functioning that would falsify all Labour's other ambitions.

Mr. Radice: I understand that the European People's party is not enthusiastic about those particular persons, with whom the right hon. Gentleman's party is loosely associated. Others object as well.

Mr. Biffen: That is simply considered. I invite the hon. Gentleman to name one continental European Government containing members of the EPP who have said that they will not sit down and discuss matters with certain members of the Italian Government.
It is quite simple. As we go through political life, we often have reservations about those people with whom we have to have daily contact. Frankly, within this Chamber, calculated unease is an integral part of how we operate. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have problems enough, in the course of European co-operation, without the self-imposed and sanctimonious barriers that are being sought.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Biffen: No, I shall not give way. I shall make a short speech, thus giving the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to address the House.
As this is the first time that we have debated the subject since the European elections, I pay my respects and regards to the right hon. Sir Christopher Prout, who led the Conservatives at Strasbourg and was my European Member of Parliament—the Member for Staffordshire and Shropshire. He contributed significantly to Conservative fortunes in Europe, although in terms with which I often disagreed. It would be appropriate to place that tribute on the record, and I hope and believe that those on the Government Front Bench will endorse it.
The European Union (Accessions) Bill has achieved a good draw for a non-voting occasion, which goes to show that the issue is at the heart of British politics, wherever else it is. Why? Because Euro-scepticism, as advanced from the Conservative Benches, has made it into a major political issue. That is a tribute to this institution—the House of Commons—without which the exercise could not have been mounted in such a way.
I understand that the Prime Minister addressed the 1922 Committee last Thursday. I try to avoid too much emotion and excitement. I was not there, and I am dependent on a report in The Times, which stated that he said:
As the membership
of the European Union
expands, it will be impossible for the centralist model to continue".

Mr. Budgen: More.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) pertinently observes that one would like a little more definition of the interplay between widening and deepening, in the context of the assertion that
it will be impossible for the centralist model to continue".
That will be the subject of continuing debate for this Chamber in the coming months and years.
I shall consider the Bill in the context of three matters: European diversity, qualified majority voting, and the common agricultural policy. Out of deference to all the other hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall do so at breakneck speed and ask for tolerance for my brevity when considering those three major points.
First, of course the Bill will add to the diversity of Europe. There is an extraordinary unwillingness to recognise that, from its very inception, the European Community had aspects that were by implication diverse—for example, the fact that the Federal German Republic had a relationship with the German Democratic Republic which made it unique within the Community, and powerfully unique.
There is also the central paradox that the industrial aspects of the Community were dominated by liberal economics, whereas agriculture was dominated by the highest common factor of protectionism. We can expect that to increase with increased membership, as different social structures have to be adapted to the confines of the European Union, and as certain fashions are replaced or challenged by other fashions.
I know that some of my hon. Friends may not be too excited at that prospect, but I do not believe that anyone will persist with the same enthusiasm and decisiveness with the liberal economics that dominated the early phases of the Community, especially as the Union enlarges to the east. Hungary and Poland are already moving away from their original preoccupation and fascination with market forces. At this stage, no one can foresee what the balance of social and economic fashion will be as we proceed. However, we are fully entitled to judge that, if the Union is to be a successful partnership of nation states, it cannot be shackled to any economic ideology.
Secondly, qualified majority voting can be reconsidered in the light of the accession of these countries. That was made clear in the Ioannina statement, ahead of the 1996 renegotiation. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will persist with the arguments on qualified majority voting that they advanced unsuccessfully last March. I do not regard my attitude as especially nationalistic—not that that does any harm—as the European Union is bedevilled by bureaucracy. I fully accept that the Single European Act was probably the most decisive development in that direction. My hands are as stained as anyone's. I am here not to apologise but to assert what I believe to be an observable political truth.
I cannot see any easy way out of the difficulty. That bureaucracy will destroy any idealism for the European Union that might exist. In as much as it gives slightly more chance of blocking the initiation of legislation, qualified majority voting should be welcomed—and welcomed as much by members of the Labour party as by Conservative Members. We have now got out of the way the tactical problems caused by persistence with the British stance on qualified majority voting and what it might do to affect the


successful applications of these countries. We can now consider such voting in a more relaxed atmosphere. I hope that Opposition Members will also see some virtues in trying to impede the flow of legislation and understand what that legislation is doing to general affection and support for the European Union.
Finally, most hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned the common agricultural policy. It is clear that we are taking on four national agricultures, each with remarkably distinctive characteristics. None of them is large, but all represent powerful political considerations for each of the nation states.
Surely we ought to begin to try to apply the principles of subsidiarity when relating those national agricultures to the existing common agricultural policy. If we cannot do so now, and cannot achieve some clear successes soon, it will be impossible to draw up a framework for the inclusion of the agricultures of applicant countries from central and eastern Europe. In every sense, we are on Euro-borrowed time as far as that matter is concerned.
Once again, that issue ought not to be the cause of division across the Chamber. I do not believe that it is seriously at issue. In the reform of the CAP, supporting qualified majority voting and ensuring an inherent diversity in the European Union, we are all talking sceptic language. As the centre of the debate moves, the sceptics will march with it.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am no sceptic, and I do not speak sceptics' language. I should have loved to follow a good many of the points made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)—for instance, his delightfully throwaway, cavalier comment "What's wrong with nationalism anyway?"—but time is pressing.
Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the impending accession of Austria and—conditional on their referendums—Finland, Sweden and Norway. The addition of four prosperous and stable democracies can only strengthen the Union in all spheres of its activity. However—as a number of hon. Members have pointed out—that enlargement will place great strains on the existing institutional framework, and its reform must be addressed urgently in advance of the 1996 intergovernmental conference. As the Foreign Secretary said, we also need to look forward to the adhesion of the central and eastern European countries, and in time—almost certainly—that of Malta and Cyprus; Switzerland will probably change its position as well.
First, we must consider the size of the Commission, the way in which its members are appointed—not least the President—and the extent of the European Parliament's involvement. Let me digress for a moment, and comment on the Corfu affair. Jean-Luc Dehaene, a Belgian, was the Franco-German nominee for the presidency. Why did all that happen? On 26 June, The Observer commented—in an editorial, not a news item—
The idea, promulgated by John Major and Douglas Hurd yesterday that Britain was opposing the Franco-German candidate, Jean-Luc Dehaene, because of the manner of the choosing—rather than the man who would have been chosen—is so much hogwash.
The President of the Commission has always been chosen behind the scenes by the leaders of the European states.
The "white smoke" system may be wrong, incidentally,

but hon. Members should note that there is no record of the United Kingdom's having opposed it in the past, and no record of our having sought to change it.
The editorial continues:
Helmut Kohl raised the name of Dehaene to John Major a couple of months ago and received no objection. Indeed, the Prime Minister had none at that time.
I should like to know whether that is true, because, if it is, the Prime Minister must have been consulted in April. An Observer editorial would normally be regarded as a reasonably authoritative and reliable piece of paper.
The article goes on:
What has happened since is that the presidency has become an issue in the Conservative Party, a litmus test of Major's willingness to stand up against the Continentals. The Prime Minister has chosen to take his stand for reasons wholly of domestic politics.
I think that that is true, and that it reflects badly on the Government.
I do not know how many hon. Members saw The Independent's Saturday magazine the day before yesterday. I thought that one of its cartoons summed up the position beautifully. It showed a man looking gloomily at a poster on a wall, apparently advertising either aftershave or deodorant, and an extremely pugnacious, lantern-jawed Prime Minister holding the valuable elixir; the slogan read "Veto—for Men!"

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Russell Johnston: For the hon. Gentleman, what else could I do?

Mr. Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Jean-Luc Dehaene was responsible for delivering to Chancellor Kohl the siting of the central bank in Frankfurt? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that might have had something to do with—quite apart from Mr. Dehaene's federal inclinations—his determination to ensure that he was repaid for the good services that he had rendered?

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman not think—as we are in the business of "thinking", which of course is a good thing—that the siting of the central bank in Frankfurt had a good deal to do with the United Kingdom's failure to accept any commitment to economic and monetary union or a single currency? Of course it did.
I believe that the whole question reverts to the continuing inability of the British political establishment to understand consensus decision-making, and its tendency to favour sporadic macho-dramatics instead. Another recent example of that was the qualified-majority adjustment to take account of enlargement; I know that it has already been discussed, but I think that our position was silly.
Reducing the number of Commissioners—if that is the favoured route—would not be easy, and I would be foolish to try to present a scheme now. I find two ideas particularly interesting, however. First, there is the possibility of retaining the same pattern rather than reducing the number, while increasing the number of vice-presidents and giving them the core responsibilities for policy. Secondly, there is the possibility of acting on a regional basis—Iberian, Benelux, Nordic and so forth. Either way, something must be done.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I have only just taken the Chair and I must admit to being slightly confused. I thought that the House was debating the Second Reading


of a Bill enabling other countries to accede to the European Union, but so far I have not heard much on that subject. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to relate his remarks to the main subject under consideration.

Sir Russell Johnston: I can only say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that none of my remarks relates to matters that have not been raised by other hon. Members. It is inevitable—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not had the pleasure of hearing what other hon. Members have said; I am concerned only with what happens here and now, when I am in the Chair.

Sir Russell Johnston: If we are dealing with enlargement, Madam Deputy Speaker, must we not inevitably deal with its consequences—its effects on the European institutions, and on the Union as a whole?
The second point that I am anxious to make—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I clarify what I said? If the hon. Member can make an adequate and convincing connection, I shall have no objection; my point was simply that, at the time when I was listening to his speech, he seemed to be making no such connection.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am extremely sorry if that was your feeling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall do my utmost to follow your wishes.
In the event of accession, the European Parliament will at some point have to be revamped. It is impossible to contemplate the possibility of a continuing and unlimited increase in size. That will mean that it must also be made more proportional to population. The Foreign Secretary raised the point earlier in relation to qualified majority voting, but he did not mention the fact that the Germans, for instance, are undoubtedly severely under-represented in the European Parliament. Problems such as that will have to be corrected at the same time.
The Nordic countries—three of which are to join the Union—have a particularly open form of democracy which, in my view, is far superior to ours. They will certainly be allies to those of us who wish the Parliament's co-decision-making powers to be increased, and want its involvement in the individual approval of Commissioners.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman and I were colleagues in the European Parliament when it was much smaller in terms of countries. He may recollect that, even then, there were great difficulties of translation. How will those difficulties be overcome if the Nordic countries take up their right to use their own language? There will be a great demand for tranlations of Swedish into Greek and Portuguese into Norwegian. Will there not be real physical problems?

Sir Russell Johnston: The short answer is, yes there are. The three new languages will undoubtedly cause not only interpretation, but translation problems and cost.

Mr. Duncan Smith: They will throw even more of our money at it to solve the problems.

Sir Russell Johnston: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is touching on a peculiarly sensitive issue: a country's language. We are lucky because most of us speak tolerable

English. For the Finns, the Norwegians and the Swedes, language is a touchstone. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that fact.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He remarked, I think to general agreement, that the form of democracy enjoyed by some of our Nordic friends may be superior to our own. If decisions are taken away from their Parliaments, will not that risk the atrophy of their democracies, and therefore diminish their quality, on which we all agree?

Sir Russell Johnston: Let me think about that—I know that that is unusual in the House. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has had views on this matter for a long time, it is a question not of taking all powers away from the old Parliaments, but of taking certain direct responsibilities away from them and transferring them to the Council and to the European Parliament. That will not necessarily lead to the atrophy of what is left.
The Nordic countries will be particularly supportive of opening up the Council of Ministers and of seeking to end the excessive secrecy through which it makes decisions, which often even denies us information on who took up what position and why. With regard to the Council, the other main question relates to the scope of qualified majority voting, whether there will be a case for greater weighting for some decisions, and if so, what decisions. I do not think that opting out is a solution.
The Bill's explanatory memorandum states:
Austria, Norway and Sweden are expected to be net contributors to the Community budget. They will contribute more than enough resources to cover the increase in Community spending resulting from enlargement. The balance will reduce the financial contributions of the existing Member States, including that of the United Kingdom, compared with what would otherwise have been the case.
That is a funny way of putting it. The reference to the UK suggests that it is not one of the existing member states. That may be legally necessary, but it is odd.
Not only as a result of accession but for other reasons, a review of the budgetary position will be required. That particularly affects us because of the United Kingdom rebate. We have concentrated too much on saying that we must keep the rebate. We should take a lead in trying to devise a system that relates gross national product to contribution—an outcome that would be fair to ourselves and to others.
I have not so far used the word "federal", which has often been bandied about, but the future European Union will be a federal Europe not a unitary Europe, and the accession of the four countries increases that likelihood. In those matters that we undertake together—political policy, which includes foreign policy, security and defence, economic and environmental policy—we must devise systems that give not only Governments—this is where I part company with the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North—but our citizens a direct opportunity to play a part in decision making at European Union level. The Liberal Democrat view of tomorrow's Europe is of a citizens' Europe, not an intergovernmental Europe.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the central and eastern European countries, which are still out in the cold, but which we all agree should ultimately accede. We need more than generalities of intent, even if they are well expressed. We need more open trade arrangements and to


be more specific in establishing a clearly defined time scale on membership of the Visegrad and Baltic countries, Slovenia and others.
I should like to continue, but time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak. The accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden is greatly welcomed by Liberal Democrats, and I very much hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading without a Division.

Mr. David Howell: I do not want to be accused of the crime of optimism, but I welcome the accession of the four new members, assuming that it takes place in all four cases, because the changes greatly reinforce the opening up of a range of issues about the direction of Europe which have hitherto been closed. The institutional structure must be revamped. The institutional discussion will involve the size of the European Commission and its powers.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), has rightly said that reviewing those powers in 1996 is an objective of British policy. Accession will change the entire style in which the Community is run and take us aeons away from the old Common Market, the old European Economic Community and even the European Community, which we joined some years ago and which many of us thought was the right way towards the great single market of 1992.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said, with his usual insight and shrewdness, accession will change and challenge the common agricultural policy, the root foundation block of the old EEC, the deal between France and Germany secured by the great European statesmen, which would keep the whole thing together. There is no conceivable way in which the CAP as presently structured can even accommodate the Eftans. Finnish agriculture is a mix of earth and forest; Swedish agriculture is also different; Austrian agriculture is not that different from German or Swiss agriculture, but it is different from that in other countries. Norwegian agriculture is different again.
If the EFTA countries join, all those matters will have to be rejigged. If we move on, as I hope we shall, and bring in the Visegrad four and Slovenia, which has not applied but which, like the Visegrad countries, is anxious to come in on the coat tails of Austria, the concept of the CAP will be dissolved. There is no conceivable way in which the agricultural sectors in Poland or Hungary, which have a huge capacity and which could feed almost the whole of Europe, can be opened up and allowed to market their products, raise living standards and ensure that they achieve a democratic process and progress. That cannot be done without a fundamental reform of the centralised agricultural system on which the Community has been based.
That is one practical example of a much larger picture that is opening up as a result of the proposed accession of the new members. I welcome that even more because it gives us a chance to begin to develop our vision of the direction in which Europe will go in and after 1996. I agree that we should get on with that. We cannot wait for this funny reflection group, the prepatory committee, which is

to be chaired by a Spanish gentleman and which is to be intergovernmental but, oddly, will include two Members of the European Parliament.
The matter should be triggered by the Bill, the act of accession of the three and the clamour of the Visegrad four to join the European Union, or at least to join in the political process of the Union, in the pillars of interior and justice matters and in a common foreign and security policy, if not the single market. We cannot wait around for the reflection group to reflect.
Nor can we wait for certain cliques in Bonn, Paris and Madrid to hijack the presidency for a whole series of six-month periods from now until 1996 and to impose through that device a totally federalist, out-dated and old-fashioned agenda. We cannot wait for any of those things.
Instead, we must get on and seize the opportunity, which I believe is presented in ever greater openness to us, to develop the alternative vision of Europe. We have now a golden opportunity to fill out in detail what we mean by a multi-track and multi-layered Europe, and to explain how we intend to set out an agenda that will challenge the old idea, which is still, I am afraid, enshrined in Maastricht, that all European affairs should be wrapped in a single hierarchical structure, and that a single institutional system should embrace everything.
We must challenge the idea that eventually the pillar of the single market should, by magnetism, pull the other pillars into a gigantic single trunk. We must show how we intend to go in another direction, how we have allies in the rest of Europe who will also move in that other direction, and how we intend to reinforce, and in some cases actually give, the intellectual lead so that that can be achieved.
Right hon. and hon. Members may say that my view is all optimism. The cry from Opposition Front-Bench Members has been that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is indulging in self-delusion, and that these changes are not happening. I tell the doubters what the new countries, such as Finland, are saying. Of course, for the moment, they are saying, "Let us just sign up. We want to get into the Union. Don't bother us with the details and the arguments; that will come later. We shall accept the acquis. Everything else will fall into place later."
Those countries are also saying to themselves that they cannot go on with the much-vaunted social policies and the much-vaunted economic policies that they have adopted in the past. We have heard a great deal about the glories of Scandinavian social policy. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) seems to have forgotten that, in Finland, there is 20 per cent. unemployment and that the Finns are crippled by the most enormous social budget.
The whole level of debate in Finland is about how to introduce deregulation, how to unscramble the overwhelming social burden, and how to move into an entirely modern stance, which would fit not with the Brussels of the social chapter and not with the Brussels of high Maastricht, but with a looser and much more competitive Europe. That is the debate going on in Finland. If the hon. Member for Rhondda thinks that that is not going on, he is ill informed and out of date.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Is the right hon. Gentleman contending that unemployment in Scandinavian countries and in other countries is due to decent living and working conditions? If unemployment exists, as the Government say, because of factors outside


their control, surely that argument applies to Scandinavia as well. Surely unemployment is not directly related to the fact that the Scandinavian countries believe in decent conditions for workers.

Mr. Howell: What I am saying—I point to the facts—is that the much-vaunted social policies which Opposition Members believe to be so important—indeed, they act for the reinforcement of more centralised social policy in Brussels—have not brought the high standard of living, the glowing harmony and the high employment that we all want to see.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I take up my right hon. Friend's earlier point about this enlargement being only stage one of two stages of enlargement. The reality may be that the Germans and others will say, "We have given the British their prize of enlargement, so we can now get on with our other agenda. Let us push these others, who would really lead to reform of the institutions, to one side." We must leap into this now, and not hold back.

Mr. Howell: I totally agree. However, I do not fear that there will be resistance from Germany to bringing in the Visegrad four, as my hon. Friend suspects. On the contrary, the Germans, as they have been almost since the creation of modern Germany, are in the usual dilemma.
Germany is a huge country dominating the middle of Europe, but the Germans do not know whether to follow their powerful instinct to bring the states of eastern Europe as fast as they can into the European Union and into the security system, whether to put that second to binding themselves with France, or whether somehow to avoid the choice. Of course there is a choice, and it creates turbulence and a lack of clarity in German politics. That is interesting for the analyst outside, but it is a little disturbing.
However, I believe that the Germans will try to do both at once. They will seek to ensure that the Visegrad four come in, for a good reason. In a sense, they want countries with western values on their eastern border, as they have on their western border. They want a westernised eastern and central Europe, and that is why, for political reasons, they are already backing the entry of the Visegrad four in a way that makes the French extremely uncomfortable.
That point leads me to the view, which has not been mentioned today, that the Franco-German federalist axis, which is alleged to be so unstoppable and which, it is believed, will roll forward and impose a federalist agenda, is not as strong in its content and its inner meaning as it has been in the past. Major differences are emerging between the French and the Germans which should be understood, although not necessarily welcomed all the way, because we do not want the French and Germans to get into a state of hostility, as has been the case in the past 100 years. There are major questions, however, which take the French and the Germans in distinctly different ways.
It is essential that we back the German aim of bringing the eastern European countries into the European Union as fast as possible. I hope that the House sees the point that they cannot join the great single market tomorrow, but that they should be given the opportunity to join in any political developments outside the single market as soon as possible, and that they should be involved politically in every conceivable way.
I want to see those countries involved in security terms which means going further than "Partnership for Peace". I have never been very comfortable with the "Partnership for Peace" idea. It may suit Finland, one of the new accession countries, because of its position vis-a-vis Russia. It may suit some of the Baltic states, and it may suit Russia, which is signed up to it. However, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland are ready to move into a full, proper European security system and would like to do so as soon as possible.
I hope that the enlargement of NATO can embrace the eastern and central European countries, including any of the new countries joining the European Union, as soon as possible. I hope that we do not wait for Russia to struggle through all its own agonies and to work out its democratic problems. That could take decades, and it is on a completely different time scale from the needs of eastern Europe and the Visegrad four, which, as I said, I hope will follow the accession four with which we are now dealing.
This is a crucial moment, when we can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, begin to pile on the pace. We can begin to say that, now that we have the 15 or 16 and now that we have opened up the institutional and constitutional issues of how Europe should be organised, how we entrench subsidiarity, how we limit the powers of the Commission, how we build a Europe that is constitutionally of nation states, and how we halt the tendency for the whole thing to drift in a centralised direction, now is the opportunity to achieve the real objective of European union, which is to recapture for the democratic camp the lost states of eastern and central Europe which we thought we had won back at the end of the second world war but which were taken from us.
That movement is the greatest opportunity and the great leap forward of 1996. It is not a great leap forward towards an unattainable monetary union based on an unattainable single currency. It is not a great leap forward towards more federal institutions and a tighter, inward-looking western Europe. We do not want that kind of great leap forward. We want the great leap forward towards bringing these countries into the democratic system. That is a vision which I hope all hon. Members will articulate with more confidence than we have in the past.
We have a great confederation and a gigantic single market which runs from Finland and Lapland in the east to Lisbon in the west, and from the toe of Italy up to John O'Groats and to the northernmost point of Europe. It is a huge single market for which we should work. I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that it will include some qualified majority voting, perhaps in areas which we have not yet covered, and perhaps not in areas which are covered at present.
Outside that, we may employ the multi-track and multi-speed approach to all the additional political, defence and foreign-policy ambitions, as well as to the ambitions for intrusion into the nooks and crannies of social and national life in every conceivable and unnecessary way, and we need not insist on a single hierarchy and a single institutional system.
There is a vision out there which is receiving greater and greater support from people in all parts of Europe. Luckily, it unites—or should unite—the party of which I am a member. It should unite this Parliament, and it will unite Europe in taking itself forward to become a larger organisation, which will ensure peace and stability, and postpone for ever the return of the war which destroyed Europe in the past.

7 pm

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I briefly address the final comments of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)? I certainly agree that the next great challenge and leap forward for the European Union is the possible accession of the Visegrad countries, perhaps in a decade's time, followed by others. There is a curious irony that those countries, as the right hon. Gentleman said, will show far greater enthusiasm for and sympathy towards the military alliance of the European Union than the four impending members which we are discussing. That is not necessarily altogether in their favour, but it shows the eagerness with which those countries in central and eastern Europe wish to join the European Union. Therefore, I share with the right hon. Gentleman the hope that it will not be too long—probably a decade—before we consider the impending accession of those countries.
Along with the vast majority of hon. Members, I welcome the accession of the four countries in question. I share all the sentiments expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and echo what has been said about the empathy that we have with those four countries and the way in which we are looking forward, as social democrats, to working with them if—hopefully—they all accede lo the European Union from January 1995. Most of the speeches have concentrated primarily on one pillar of the European Union: the economic community. That is clearly an important pillar, but I do not feel that sufficient regard has been paid to one of the other pillars of the Union—the common foreign and security policy which the Maastricht treaty established. I wish to address my remarks to the difficulties that we are likely to face after the accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden to the European Union.
Hon. Members do not need me to remind them that the Maastricht treaty established three pillars: first, the economic community; secondly, the internal aspects of the Union; and, thirdly, foreign and security policy. It also designated the Western European Union as the defence arm of common foreign and security policy. We have been struggling since then to get some kind of coherent common foreign and security policy which could be accepted by the present 12 members of the European Union. We have been struggling, but recent events, especially in the former Yugoslavia, show how little progress we have made in that regard. Inevitably, national interests have been paramount and have tended to hamper the search for a common foreign and security policy. In the case of Yugoslavia, we can cite Germany's natural tendency towards Croatia, and, more recently, Greek sympathy towards the Serbs. We have had that difficulty with the present 12 and such difficulties will probably increase with the accession of the four new countries.
If we consider the facts, three out of the four countries are traditionally neutral. I find it paradoxical that the Foreign Secretary of Sweden and the President of Finland have stated that they wish to enter the European Union. One of the reasons for that is that it will offer them greater security. They want greater security through membership of the European Union, but they are not prepared to be members of any of the military alliances which bind the core members. Clearly, that may well alter with the passage of time. Indeed, there have already been indications, especially from the Finnish, that their attitudes may alter, particularly after 1996. However, this Bill deals

with the here and now and the period up to the intergovernmental conference in 1996. As I have said, the situation may change, but it means that, in the enlarged European Union of 16 members, 11 only—that includes Norway—will be full members of the Western European Union, while four members of the European Union, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland, would not be members of any military alliance whatever.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent visit by Western European Union representatives to Finland? We were extremely warmly received and there was every indication that the Finns were radically reassessing their situation.

Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a member of the Western European Union, which is why I speak about it with such feeling. I have tried to express the view that the feelings of the four countries are the most likely to change in the near future, but the reality is that, at present, it is not their stated intention to become full members of the Western European Union. They have indicated their wish to be observers, which is in line with what I have already said to the House. The claim of the Western European Union to be the security and defence wing of the European Union is substantially weakened if one third of the membership of the Union are observers to it only. If we are to progress with a common foreign and security policy and a common defence policy, which will, one hopes, lead to common defence, to use the Maastricht phraseology, it clearly cannot be based on a military or defence strategy in which one third of the membership of the European Union are fully participating, fully paid-up members of the defence organisation and European pillar of NATO: the Western European Union.
May I remind the House that the accession of those four countries will bring a new set of problems? I think that it was the Foreign Secretary himself who said that, for the first time, the European Union will now have a common border with Russia. The Scandinavian countries have a close interest in the Baltic states. I am not suggesting for one moment that the United Kingdom does not have an interest in them too, but the interest of the Scandinavian countries is much greater than that of the United Kingdom. That applies especially to Sweden, which has invested a great deal of time, energy, money and diplomatic effort in supporting the Baltic states.
I remind the House that President Yeltsin referred to the three Baltic states as the "near abroad". In a parody of President Yeltsin, the Swedish Government referred to the three Baltic states as the Swedish "near abroad" to indicate their own interest in preserving the independence of the Baltic states.
My two examples show that the European Union will be faced with new and different problems. As a consequence, it will have to take a much closer interest than it has in the past in the political and economic development of Russia. I hope that we are prepared to be more proactive in assisting the Russians in the development of their economy than we have been hitherto. We must also take a closer interest in the foreign policy developments of Russia.
Having been pessimistic and probably having presented a far too negative case, I shall end on a positive note. Clearly the four applicant countries have great experience in international affairs. They have all played their full part in the development of the United Nations and in carrying


out the United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts throughout the world. They have also assisted in the promotion of the welfare and interests of the third world. I hope that when they accede to the European Union and begin to play their full part in the development of the foreign policy of the Union, if not its security and defence policy, they will be able to push the EU towards a more imaginative approach to third world problems and to global environmental problems. If they are able to do that, their accession will more than outweigh the negative features that I have outlined and the pessimistic case that I presented about the four countries' participation in the security and defence organ of the European Union.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I suppose that the first question that we must ask is whether it is necessary for the four applicant countries to accede to the European Union if we are to give them some of the advantages that many in this country would wish to extend to them. Surely it is not necessary to invite them to join the Union if we are to enter into some form of military alliance with them. Equally, it is not necessary to invite them into the Union if we wish to extend to them the advantages of free trade and to gain the advantage for our manufacturers of free trade with them. It must surely be that we principally advocate their entry into the Union because we believe that it will have some beneficial effect upon the Union itself.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) is in the Chamber. He has a long and distinguised career in his criticism of the Union, or the Common Market as it used to be. When talking to me he always said, "Extend the Common Market; bring in more members. That will loosen it up." He used to use a different verb, but that was the effect of his remarks. He always argued that when the southern European countries came in the common agricultural policy would be loosened.
My right hon. Friend reminded us of the imaginative attitude that many of the people of southern Europe have towards the question of public finance. He felt that it would be unlikely that the Germans would wish to finance, say, a tobacco-support mechanism or the growing of notional olives on every piece of concrete in southern Italy. That has not happened yet. Equally, the loosening up of the CAP has not yet happened.
We are about to find that the cost of financing the CAP and the European Union has grown enormously, partly as a result of the entry of southern European countries and partly because of our great vision—all this vision—of convergence and industrial support. We would be opposed to it if we saw it emerging in the United Kingdom, but we manage to describe it with great enthusiasm when we see it elsewhere in Europe.
Is it proven that the entry of the four applicant countries will loosen up the Community? I have tried to ascertain what people mean when they talk about deepening the Union. To some, deepening is a term of abuse. To others, it is a sign of the Union developing in ways of which they approve.
It seems highly likely that the entry of the four countries will be to the Labour party's advantage in the sense that

their entry will lead to the shaping of the Union in a manner of which it tends to approve. Each of the four countries will be in favour of the social chapter. I note that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is nodding firmly. He has been one of my tutors in these matters over the years.
The four countries will be strongly in favour of the social chapter and will be more than likely to disapprove of our opt out. They will say that our opt out gives us an unfair advantage in competing in Europe. They will use the Community's institutions to impose the social chapter on us by various indirect methods connected mainly with the Single European Act. They will further impose it by the use of the federalist mechanism of law-making and law-enforcement within the Community. To that extent, their entry will surely lead to the further deepening of the Community.
The argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North about the southern European countries and the CAP can again be used. We are to see the entry into the Union of four more agricultural economies with slightly different agricultures. That will again distort and make more expensive the CAP. By any rational standard, one would expect the Germans to say, "We have had enough. We do not want to support any more of these distortions. If these distortions are to be later extended to the traditional bread basket of Europe—Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, as it used to be—the cost will be enormous."
The loosening up process has been anticipated on so many occasions but it has not come yet. When most people talk about deepening, it is a term of art for what happens to be their particular concern about the Community as matters stand. There is much talk about our vision of Europe.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) will forgive me for being offensive, but he offers the House a lot of stuff about our vision of Europe being accepted by the rest of Europe. If a gentleman in the south of Italy is completing his application for some form of industrial or agricultural support, I do not suppose that he has in mind much of what my right hon. Friend said about his vision of Europe as a place where honesty, democracy and gentlemanly behaviour will overcome all national characteristics.
I dare say that the gentleman who is pulling down the ramp of a cattle wagon to unload a cow which is about to be walked across the border between the Republic of Ireland and the north in order to collect subsidies on each side of the border does not have much in mind talk about a vision of a democratic, honest and forward-thinking Europe. I doubt whether he will be completely overwhelmed and burst into tears of contrition as a result of the vision of Europe held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford.

Sir Russell Johnston: One could say, so what?

Mr. Budgen: I was just going to say what.
Instead of telling Europe how it should proceed, we should recognise that there are many individuals, parties and states in Europe who genuinely believe in a federal structure. No doubt, if we were Belgians, we would have a very different view about how our country might be united. If we were Italians, we might well say that we did


not trust our domestic institutions and that we would be happier to be ruled by European statesmen. Those are perfectly reasonable points of view.
My contention is that it is not much good making airy speeches about how our vision will conquer Europe. In the present circumstances, the best we can do is to decide what our view of Europe should be. We should try to assess domestic opinion and try to offer a little leadership in that regard.
Instead of going on about a vision for Europe, we should recognise that the most important misfortune that we have suffered as a nation in recent history was the mismanagement of our economy through our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, the failure of the Conservative party to understand that that membership was only the necessary preliminary to a single currency and the need for us, in our party and in our country, to argue with those who are still unprepared to accept the lesson of that humiliation.
It is no good saying that allowing the accession of these four countries is irrelevant to that point. When I said that to the Foreign Secretary, he replied that the accession of these countries has nothing to do with a single currency. However, my right hon. Friend should read some of the speeches which his fellow members of the Cabinet make from time to time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an extremely important speech in Bonn on 29 June. When expressing his support for Sir Leon Brittan and for Mr. Lubbers, he said:
These men are all men with a vision of European Union. They support the deepening as well as the widening of the Union.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer then very helpfully explained his views further on television the following Sunday. According to The Daily Telegraph, the Chancellor said:
However with the prospect of a further enlargement of the European Union he indicated that a common currency would soon be inevitable.
'The idea that they will all be trading in 20 freely floating currencies based on 20 monetary authorities I would find highly unlikely.'
'It is possible that they would all trade in Deutschmarks.'
No one can accuse my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of being overwhelmed by an interest in detail. It is possible that he did not draw the distinction between a common currency and a single currency. However, he has been the most vigorous advocate of a single currency.
When he appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee recently, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had not had time to read the book which his old friend Sir Leon Brittan had written about Europe. I recommend that book. It is a very important and interesting summary of the present views of many people in the Tory party. On page 54 of his book, Sir Leon writes about the membership of the club:
This is crucial, for the government leaders who signed the Treaty are fundamentally aware of two factors; first, that some of them may be ready and willing to form a single currency before others, and must not be stopped from doing so; and secondly that, in the long term, a single currency will work more effectively the more European nations join.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir Leon Brittan believe that the accession of these four countries, far from loosening the organisation in the European Union, will actually deepen it, make it more integrated and lead inexorably—they argue—towards a single currency.
I have spoken at some length and I am sure that my colleagues would like to contribute to the debate. Let us not in this House make vague, vacuous assertions about the way in which our European neighbours will change their view. They, like us, formed their view perhaps in childhood or in late adolescence, but owing to the deep experiences of their countries, families, towns and villages, they will not be influenced by foreign words, no matter how grand or eloquent.
All we can do in this House is to try to see how such policies work for our country and offer some element of leadership and choice. At least we can now say that the Labour party is moving clearly and firmly towards the advocacy of a federal European state. It will soon be the duty and honour of the Tory party to offer choice to the country.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Before the contribution of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), I was going to say that the one thing that has tended to unite those of us who are habitués of these European debates is our support for enlargement. The hon. Gentleman fractured, or at least splintered, that fragile unity among us. That is a shame because, like hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate, I strongly welcome the accession of Austria, Norway, Finland and Sweden to membership of the European Union.
In the past, we have tended to differ, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to those differences, on whether deepening should accompany widening, whether widening means diluting, as some hope, and therefore whether widening means more or less integration within the European Union. I can say unambiguously that I entirely share the analysis of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He got it absolutely right. He was spot on. To those who see widening as an alternative to deepening, I say that, in the history of the European Community, enlargement has always led to greater integration.
The economic and political forces that drive the process of European integration are invariably strengthened, not weakened, as more nations gain membership. The greater the number of members, the clearer and tighter—not the vaguer and looser—the institutional arrangements have to become to accommodate the decision-making among the increased number of member states. That, of course, means more complexity, more tough bargaining, more compromise and more give and take between that greater number of member states. It also means, inevitably, more majority voting within the European Union. We must face up to that. That has been the lesson of enlargement in the past and it will be the case as we move from a 12-member to a 16-member Union. It will certainly be true in spades with the coming challenge as the Union is enlarged through membership of east European countries.
Given the complexities and the difficult currents within the Union through which we must navigate, it is all the more important to have a clear and agreed vision of where we want to end up. We also need a good route map to enable us to get there. It is lamentable and unfortunate, and a great loss for our country as well as for the entire European Union, that that vision and end goal, as well as the route map, are notably absent from the Government's


approach. On its current performance and in the light of its current divisions, the Tory party seems incapable of providing them.
I shall discuss where the European Union is going and some of the problems tat it must face on the way. I shall be as blunt as some hon. Members who have already spoken, including the right hon. Members for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). On the subject of further enlargement, I believe that a continent like Europe, which is so strongly linked by its geography, its history and its culture, and whose political stability and security is so dependent on close work and co-operation, should not in principle exclude any applicant country which wishes to join its union. That is an important observation and an important principle to establish.
We want to extend Europe's influence in the world and therefore we want the European Union to grow. We want to extend current European stability and security throughout the continent. Whether the impetus is to safeguard Europe from continental war, to expand trade and develop markets, to build up a third economic force to rival the might of the United States, Japan and the Pacific rim or to extend social benefits and environmental protection to all European citizens, the case for stronger co-operation and integration in an enlarged European Union is overwhelming.
Membership of the Union must depend on each new country's compatibility—membership is neither a foregone conclusion, nor automatic. Given the different stages of economic, political and social development achieved in the Visegrad countries, their membership of the Union will not be gained speedily and smoothly. It will not happen overnight.
The challenge from east Europe is clear to us. Those countries are striving to become successful, stable and socially united market economies. The help that they need to restructure, to gain reassurance as well as security and access to markets can be provided only by the west. In the years to come, therefore, the central task for the European Union will not simply be to forge even closer integration among its existing members. That was the Maastricht agenda. It was an appropriate and relevant agenda, but we have moved on from it as events and changes throughout Europe have overtaken the thinking that underpinned it. We must reach out much further and concentrate increasingly on adapting the workings and institutions of the European Union to meet the needs of a larger and more diverse membership of nations.
That will involve a gradual process of association leading to stronger links, perhaps with the various pillars of the Union. The right hon. Member for Guildford made an apposite observation about that. I see no reason why the Visegrad four should not increasingly become associated with, or linked to, some of the political mechanisms and pillars of the Maastricht Union without necessarily becoming fully drawn into the economics of the Union, and far less becoming full members of it. The right hon. Member's observation about that was extremely important and valid. We want such membership to be gained finally, but it must be organised. The process of change and adaptation will be slow. It must come at a time when it can be afforded—when the costs can be borne by the member countries and, not least, by the European Union.
Whatever path the enlargement follows and whatever applicant countries are involved, some daunting issues, apart from cost, must be faced. I do not discount the need to overhaul radically the common agricultural policy or the complexities posed by the creation of economic and monetary union.
However, without any question, as the Union grows, the biggest issue that will confront us will be the necessary rethink of the ways in which it makes its law, enforces its decisions and regulates its markets. Those issues represent the most daunting challenge to those of us who are committed to the development of the European Union.
We know what is wrong. A lurid picture of those problems was painted by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North and I do not mind saying that I accept a number of his criticisms, but I do so from a different standpoint. I acknowledge those problems through a desire to overcome them rather than in the hope that they should continue and possibly weaken the European Union.
We know about the strains and shortcomings in Europe's methods of work, the lack of transparency in its decision making, the poverty of national debate and scrutiny of its laws and decisions and the limited accountability of its officials. That democratic and administrative malaise within the Union is seriously undermining it. It is impeding its development, undermining its legitimacy and its public appeal. It is important to address those problems, because they are the cause of a growing public revolt. I do not exaggerate that, and I do not support the course that others would like us to follow in our denunciation, but we have witnessed the emergence of a public revolt against what is perceived to be a remote, out-of-touch and uncontrollable bureaucracy in the European Union. That must be dealt with if, as the Labour party and those of us who are strongly committed to Europe and approach the matter not as Euro-sceptics but as convinced Europeans want, the European Union is to be strengthened, its sense of purpose restored, and Britain's place in it reaffirmed.
Without stronger democratic development, hand in hand with greater economic integration and enlargement of the Union, public acceptance of both that integration and enlargement will be fragile and may even be placed in jeopardy. That is the key lesson to be learnt from the experience of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty and the negotiation of the entry of the four new member states whose accession we are debating tonight.
Important questions must be asked in closing the democratic deficit that has become such an issue in relation to the Union—how European legislation is initiated in the Commission; how the Commission is formed, and who forms and approves it; which decisions are taken and on what basis in the Council of Ministers; what involvement the European Parliament has; what scrutiny national Parliaments undertake; whether an entirely new hierarchy of decision making should be instituted, with heavier procedures attached to the European Union's weightier acts; and, above all, how we shall open all that to greater democratic scrutiny and accountability within our own nations and among our publics at home. Those and other issues need to be seriously addressed and debated as further enlargement is pursued. I do not for a moment describe that as a Euro-sceptic agenda. On the contrary, it is a positive, thinking, pro-European agenda, on which


those of us who are convinced Europeans should not for one moment cede to those who are hostile to the whole project.
It has been a recent orthodoxy, at least in the Foreign Office, to regard the intergovernmental conference in 1996 as an essentially limited and unambitious exercise—more a 3,000 mile service than a radical overhaul. I understand the nervousness of those who went through the whole Maastricht experience, whether they were officials, Ministers or those who participated in so many debates. I understand the reluctance of all those concerned to embark on anything that remotely resembles that Maastricht process. None the less, that attitude is wrong.
Even if the outcome is smaller than anticipated, our sights should be lifted and our horizons should be wider than that suggested by a mere 3,000 mile service. Our aims should be to put a lot into 1996, play a constructive part in the IGC, help shape the decisions and, most importantly, loudly proclaim and stand up for the IGC's results rather than gloss over its conclusions or run away from public debate about them. We should not refuse to stand up and give an account of what has been agreed at that conference for fear that public debate may re-open internal party divisions. That has bedevilled our approach to date and it has been very weakening as a result. We must give a lead. That may be hoping for more than the Government can give, hobbled as they are by the terrible internal tensions and divisions within their party, but that positive, creative approach to the IGC is extremely badly needed.
If Britain is to be remotely successful at the IGC, the Government, in their contributions to the debate, whether in Britain or among our European partners on the continent, must stop posing the choice for Europe's future—whether it is enlarged or not—as between a minimalist, free-trade area with weak, shackled institutions and loose-knit intergovernmental working versus a centralised, federalist organisation, robbing its member states of their sovereignty and riding roughshod over their traditions and national Parliaments. Both options are equally unrealistic, irrelevant and undesirable. It is hardly surprising that, given that choice between almost nothing and rampant federalism-centralism, many of our constituents have become a little sceptical. It is a false, wrong-headed and thoroughly misleading choice to put to the British people.
A third option gives a different vision of a larger, more integrated Europe that is wider and deeper in its economic, political and defence integration, but whose institutions and working practices are radically reformed to make it more democratic, more accountable, more responsive, less wasteful and more efficient, with proper devolution of power outwards and downwards from the centre. That is the Europe that we need for the future. We must work for that and, above all, we must argue for it. If the present Government will not do so, the rest of us must.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, especially following the characteristically thoughtful and profound contribution about Europe's future direction from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I hope that I shall not embarrass him or his colleagues if I say that I agreed with a substantial amount of what he said.
I have never considered it a weakness if hon. Members substantially agree across the Floor of the House on

European matters. On major votes of principle on European matters and at all the developmental stages since we joined the European Community in 1973, the House has a strong tradition of big, built-in, natural majorities for the next significant stage of development. That may not have applied to specific legislation, in respect of which the whipping system and the Government majority system in whatever form were in play and where the majority was commensurate with the party reflection. But on the big issues of future European development, a great meeting of minds in the House has impinged on public opinion outside.
The European Movement, an all-party European movement of which the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) is an active member, holds its ordinary meetings in various places throughout the country. The reaction of the audiences, of all political affiliations and none—some people adhere to no party whatever—are encouraging and enthusiastic. Basically, subject to details and differences of opinion on individual items, people are keen on these developments.
It always encourages but depresses us when audiences ask, "Why haven't the politicians told us that before?" People want to know why they have had such a distorted account of the development of the European Community and Union from the press—and particularly from a number of malevolent broadsheet newspapers owned by non-British people who are pursuing a campaign of hatred towards the European Union. I use that strong word deliberately. The campaign is even more stark in the tabloids and it leads to a great deal of scepticism among the public because it creates a vacuum.
I am a keen Conservative and enthusiastic supporter of nearly all the Government's policies but am nevertheless of the view that, tragically, the problem was added to in our European election campaign. As has already been said, this is our first debate on the European accession treaty since the European elections. The Conservative stance in those elections was unnecessarily negative, which was a great shame; ultimately, it sought merely to cover our internal divisions in the parliamentary party. We were so busy campaigning and trying to keep the party together that we ended up simply appeasing some of the more active—and, indeed, geriatric—members of the local associations. One Sunday newspaper found, in a survey that the average age of the most active members in our local Conservative associations was about 62, which is fairly disturbing in its own right.
I do not believe that that scepticism is other than simply the result of a vacuum—unfortunately, as I have said, a distorted account of these developments is given both in the House and in the British press. I do not believe that we are talking about the genuinely sceptical people who want to see a recrudescence of nationalism or a strong nation-statism of one sort or another, whatever the future structures. If we take the youngest generation, it is axiomatic that they are extremely keen and natural Europeans, and want politicians to take the lead.
In the German European elections, even though they were somewhat jolted by the lower-than-ever turnout—and others will remind me of the percentage if it is relevant to the debate—there was literally no difference of any sort in the European policy stance of the major parties. In Britain, that would be regarded as eccentric and bizarre. Basically, if the development of the European Union is a good thing


and is in the interests of this country and other member states, there does not have to be a huge difference of opinion.
If a Government succumb to the temptation—and I say this with great sadness—to create official state policy on the basis of appeasing a small number of my reactionary old-fashioned colleagues here who want to put the clock back not 20 or 50 years but to 1850—or probably earlier than that, and probably to before the Reform Act of 1832—rather than constructing a positive and enthusiastic policy in the literal, intrinsic and good interests of this country, they will inevitably get into increasing difficulties. I deeply regret that.
The reality is that, if all Governments and parties go too far down the un-European path, that brings rather sad conclusions to those who seek to perpetrate those policies. We have seen that in the past, and I hope that it will not be repeated in the future because the public are crying out for strong leadership on these matters. That is why I think that there will be a strong welcome among the British people for the accession of these four members if the subsequent referendums in three of them also prove to be positive—despite the fact that there is inevitably a question mark over Norway.
If Norway votes no, membership is not compulsory; it can go away. It does not have to join, but I would be sad if that happened. All the way through the strands of debate and argument in those countries, from the official Government statements to the debates in their own Parliaments, we have seen the enthusiasm for accepting the acquis communautaire. There is no question but that the people in those countries, and particularly their Governments and governing parties, feel that to be so.
I will not prolong the debate unnecessarily by quoting in detail. It just so happens, however, that I have the official negotiating statements made by those Governments recommending membership to their people. I shall quote the statement from a country which had a spectacular referendum result. The British press, by the way, said that the result would be either a no or a tiny yes margin—and look what happened. I did not see much exegesis and interpretation in the British press afterwards: there was no questioning of the sensible Austrian population about why they were so wise as to make this decision. I shall quote from the official Austrian Government's statement from the publication "On the Threshold to a New Europe":
the European Union enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty stands for much more than the Single Market. The process of European integration was designed by the political vision of a Europe undivided and prosperous. So far, this work of peaceful cooperation has yielded in European history four decades of what we hope will remain a lasting peace. European integration"—
that is what they want officially and that is what they voted for—
has also been an answer to hatred, nationalism and genocide—phenomena that we believed to be a thing of the past.
There is the answer. There is no question but that some of the young fogies in the Conservative party and elsewhere—there are one or two elsewhere, and I imagine that there are also old fogies in the Labour party—would like to put the clock back as well. There is no question but that, a few years ago, enlargement would have been the original idea for stopping the integration process. But they all accept the acquis communautaire.
I shall quote from the equivalent official statement from Corfu of the Finnish Government:
The European Union is a key factor in strengthening the security of our continent. Security grows out of social responsibility, interaction, respect for human life and economic prosperity. In such a Europe there are no economic or social lines of division and all states are able to participate equally in the integration process. Enlargement of the Union promotes the enhancement of stability throughout the continent.
Finland supports the Union's economic and political objectives.
To move on briefly and quickly, I shall quote from the Swedish press release which was issued in March when the negotiations were concluded:
Swedish membership also means enlargement in a number of other crucial areas of cooperation: environmental issues, international efforts to combat crime, narcotics questions and refugee matters. All these areas are examples of problems which can only be solved by means of broad European and international cooperation.
Membership is the only option which will enable Sweden to participate in this cooperation.
Finally, Norway: once again, the British newspapers have attempted to say that hesitations will turn out to be no votes. I am not sure about that; we will have to wait to see how one interacts with and impinges on the other. I quote from the official statement issued by the Norwegian Government at the same time as the Swedish one:
Our national interests are best served if Norway participates fully in the further development of Europe, on an equal footing with our Nordic neighbours and European allies.
All the countries of Europe have a great need for close cooperation on employment, economic stability, welfare, social security and environmental issues. Binding cooperation in these areas is especially important for a country with such an open economy as Norway.
Can we also get away from the phantasmagoric mythology which has been repeated time and time again by certain foolish people in this country? It is suggested that, for some reason, there is a huge change of opinion among the other existing members—or, indeed, among the four new members, if the other three countries follow Austria's lead in joining the Union soon, which I expect them to do—and that there must be major hesitations and fundamental second thoughts about the development of the Union and a resiling from the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act. There is no evidence at all that that is so—other than the harsh reality of the recession and the fact that that and mass unemployment produce crude political movements arising in various member states which may have a nationalistic impetus which is stronger than the more traditional and conventional parties in different countries, and other than the vacuum created by the gaps in the traditional enthusiasm for European matters which has always been a feature of the Conservative party and the Conservative Government. That is the solemn and dangerous thing which we in our party and in the whole of this Parliament must accept.
Again, that is illustrated by the idea that suddenly in the campaign it was suggested that there would be different speeds for different member states, and the total misrepresentation of what the Commission is about and what it has been doing. I do not disagree with the assertion by the hon. Member for Hartlepool that we need another searching look at all these matters, particularly because of enlargement. As the Union gets larger, we must have a more tightly drawn up, integrated structure. This is not an irony; it is a reality if we are to make progress to the next stage—the greater use of qualified majority voting. To my mind, that is the quintessence of a democratic mechanism,


but it is regarded by some of our colleagues with scorn, derision, contempt and hatred. How can they describe that as being other than totally democratic and for the most part in the deep interests of this country rather than detrimental to it in future?
We see the multi-speed idea suddenly arising. I hope that it will disappear as quickly as it has arisen because of its intrinsic superficiality. Some people use a different phrase—"variable geometry". I shall quote what Mr. Andriessen said several years ago about the matter of variable geometry and what I believe it means to those who are involved, whatever their domestic political party adherence. By the way, that is often much less relevant in the European Councils and discussions than we think here. There is no obsession with someone being a Conservative, a Christian Democrat, a socialist or of the far left. There is a working together with people from all sorts of different political disciplines.
I was struck by what Mr. Andriessen said in April 1991:
Creative thinking is now required to define arrangements whereby the Community could offer the benefits of membership, and the accompanying gains for stability, without weakening its drive towards further integration and without subjecting the fragile structures of new market economies to excessive pressure. This could be achieved through affiliate membership, a new concept not provided for by the Community treaties or by the Europe Agreements, and at present not on the agenda of the inter-governmental conference. Affiliate membership would provide membership rights and obligations in some areas, while excluding others, at least for a transitional period.
No one is suggesting that notion now, because there is no suggestion of anyone applying for membership on that basis. To be sure, some non-member countries still have association agreements, as they have had for a long, time. Nevertheless, the quotation provides an insight into the thinking of those who assumed that there might be an alternative way of applying for membership, with endless opt-outs and hesitations, and with strident demands for instant second thoughts, should countries wish to press ahead with certain developments in the Union. I hope that that puts the record straight.
The same idea lies behind the discussions that can be heard going on in the newly elected Strasbourg Parliament. No one is having second thoughts on these matters—none that I can detect—although there are inevitable differences about details of policy. That is only natural; we would not expect there to be automatic consensus on all areas of policy. It would be very silly to suppose that there could be.
There are still internal party divisions in the House, although for the moment they may be papered over in the Labour party by a soi-disant unity. It will be intriguing to see how long that lasts. I would expect it to last at least until the next general election. There are some who believe that, if there were ever a Labour Government—which I hope there will not be—the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) would act as the leading old fogey in his party in a campaign against greater European integration.
If we go along with such ideas, this country will be in mortal danger of losing its way once again. The national sovereignty of member states is not under attack in any of these plans—if it were, I would not be in favour of them. I have never detected a single instance of loss of sovereignty; those who think that it has been lost are suffering from fantasies of old parliamentary doctrine—ideas that are no longer part of the real world. Sovereign countries can work together in more and more closely

integrated structures and with qualified majority voting. That serves only to enhance their intrinsic national sovereignty.
The more axiomatically desirable something is, the less we tend to discuss it. That was certainly true of NATO, which in the cold-war period was axiomatically considered a good idea. Of course there was an external threat, so the parallel is not exact, but because it was regarded as good it was felt that there was no real need to discuss it at length. That is how other member states often regard membership of the EU. They believe that it is axiomatically good for their national strengths and their future prosperity.
Why cannot we come up to date? Why cannot the House of Commons be more mature about these matters and devise a cross-party consensus without the fear of being dull? I am sure that the Minister would agree that we need a properly constructed policy and that we should not worry unduly about a small minority in our party, which should not be allowed to dictate terms and to demand that we agree to more of the items on its agenda: "You gave way to our hesitations over Maastricht. Sorry, but we forgot to mention another 11 items on our agenda."
It would be a most unwelcome development if the Conservative Government acceded to such demands. The Government will gain support if they succeed in recreating our traditional enthusiasm for membership of a growing and enlarged European Union.

Mr. Giles Radice: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who made a characteristically positive speech about the European Union. He criticised his own party's campaign in the European election. Whatever else may be said about that campaign, it was a resounding failure, in that it produced the Conservatives' worst result this century.
I want to refer later to what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said about widening and deepening, but he claimed that I was one of his tutors on the subject of the EU. If so, he must have been an extremely inattentive student.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on his thoughtful speech about the European Union and its direction. I also intend to take up several of his points.
Like every other hon. Member who has spoken, I welcome the treaty of accession, signed in June of this year in Corfu and admitting Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden. It is good news that the Austrian referendum gave a resounding yes to entry. I hope that that will prove a good augury for the referendums to be held later this year in Norway, Finland and Sweden.
In some ways, the four former EFTA countries are natural members of the EU. For many years, the Austrian economy has been closely tied to the German. The three Scandinavian countries are prosperous welfare democracies, which will strengthen the EU and which should have little difficulty adapting to membership. They will certainly have little difficulty supporting the social chapter. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West rightly pointed out that the Government are gaining no allies in that respect. On the contrary, Labour will gain allies when those countries join, as I hope they will.
From a purely economic perspective, the surprising thing is how long it took after Britain had joined the EC for


these four EFTA countries to follow suit. The explanation is political. Finland had a special relationship with the former Soviet Union, Austria and Sweden were neutral, and Norway was the Scandinavian country furthest from Brussels and the European centres of power.
It is nevertheless good news that the four are likely to join the EU. As the Foreign Secretary said, Second Reading provides us with a good opportunity to debate the strategic direction of the European Union. Should it, for instance, take in more members? If so, which ones? Should widening take priority over deepening, or do both processes go hand in hand? What does the accession of these countries say about popular support for the Union? What can be done to further that support? Those are all important questions.
I believe that the EU's greatest task is to help to bring lasting stability, prosperity and democracy to the former Soviet bloc countries. That applies especially to the Visegrad four, but it does not exclude other countries such as Slovenia and the Baltic states. This is partly an argument about history and culture. I think it was Lady Thatcher who said that Warsaw, Budapest and Prague are European cities too. Partly, too, it is an argument about our self-interest. We do not want these countries failing on our borders. If they do fail, huge numbers of migrants will come to our countries—hence the self-interest.
There is also the sometimes forgotten fact that the establishment and underwriting of democracy has always been the European Union's underlying purpose. It was never just a free trade area. Had it been, Spain and Portugal could have joined much earlier. The European Union is above all a grouping of democratic countries, and it is primarily to help to provide a lasting basis for democracy that it is so crucial that the EU lay down a positive, clear timetable for the entry of the former communist countries.
As some hon. Members have said, if the task of enlargement to the east is accepted by existing members, there will be some implications. There is the issue of CAP reform. Euro-sceptics sometimes hopefully suggest that widening the EC somehow rules out deepening. That is not the case.
A European Union of 20 or even 25 members will inevitably have to change its operating rules if it is to work effectively. It will have to look at the number of Commissioners and how they are appointed, and at strengthening the presidency to facilitate business. There is already a problem about that. It will have to look at the transparency of the Community institutions, and will have to reappraise the weighting between big and small countries.
My argument with the Government over the Ioannina compromise was not so much the issue as the fact that they chose to raise it at this inappropriate time. Above all, the EU must look at the greater use of majority voting. Anyone who does not see that as a serious issue is not facing the reality of the Union, because a Community of 16, let alone 20 or 25, cannot be run without a great deal more majority voting.
Those will all be vital questions for 1996, but even more important is the need to involve the peoples of Europe in the European Union. I hope that the EFTA countries will show in their referendums that they want to join the Union. The Maastricht referendum in France was narrowly won

but the result was uncertain, and two referendums were necessary in Denmark before the Maastricht treaty was supported.

Mr. Dykes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a big difference between a compulsory referendum under constitutional arrangements and one that is an optional extra designed by a political leader which goes wrong for internal reasons?

Mr. Radice: I am coming to that, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping me on the right track.
In an excellent recent speech on the Union which I advise hon. Members to read, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) rightly said that it cannot be a grand design handed down from on high from Government to the governed, and that Europe must be argued for.[Interruption.] We do not always argue for it. We argued for it on entry, but we do not go on arguing for it. We must continue to argue for it, and when we do things will change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield rightly argues not just for an increase in the powers of the European Parliament but for the involvement of national Parliaments in the process. We have failed to do that throughout the Union.

Mr. Spearing: I commented to myself rather than to the House that the argument has been going on for 15 years. Does that not show either that a mistake was made or that there are continuing doubts that have some validity?

Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend has never accepted the result of the first referendum in 1975, so in a sense we are arguing on different levels. I am saying that we must make a case for what is done, that we must argue for the Maastricht treaty.
I was involved in both the French and Danish referendums. The problem was that they were ad hoc referendums, and were related mainly to national events. President Mitterrand decided to have one because he thought that it would strengthen his political position. They were held at different times, and had a knock-on effect. They were fought primarily on national lines and often accentuated party differences.
There is a case for referendums, but they should be Europewide, and should take place simultaneously, on the same day across Europe, rather in the manner of European elections. That might avoid some of the purely domestic political issues that enter the debate.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnson) does not support referendums, but I think that we should look at the idea. Purely Europewide referendums could highlight European aspects of policy and would force politicians to argue for change and involve the people in that change. The problem is that politicians have sometimes not argued the case. The Government certainly did not argue the case for Maastricht, just for its opt-outs. That was hardly an argument for Maastricht, and the people were not involved.
Britain must be involved in all these debates. It cannot be an effective member of the European Union, half in and half out, an occasional country member, an offshore island semi-detached from the continent. We must play a leading part in all the debates ahead. In that context, the


triumphalist tone that the Foreign Secretary occasionally allowed to creep into his speech was totally inappropriate to the facts.
Under this Government, Britain is not taken seriously, as it ought to be, in European debates, and the reason is simple. Our partners are uncertain of our intentions and motives, and do not know whether the Government will be blown off course by a band of very determined rather skilful and in some respects quite able Euro-sceptics. The Government must make up their mind. It is about time that they said firmly to their rebels that we can achieve more together in Europe than we can alone, and that Britain will at last begin to play a positive part in the European Union and in the debate about its direction.

Mr. Ray Whitney: I join in the warm welcome expressed by nearly all contributors to the debate for the proposal that the four new candidates should accede to the European Union. It is significant that the Governments of those countries have decided to apply, and I hope that their peoples will endorse that decision.
Those applications have been made despite the fact that the past two or three years have been difficult for the Union. We all know the reasons, and they are related not only to the economic recession but to the challenges of Bosnia and other foreign policy difficulties. Despite that, those countries clearly understand the benefits and advantages to their nations of membership of the European Union.
I hope that the decision by those four Governments will send a message to those in this country, some of whom are in the House, who are misguided and muddle-headed about the concept of the European Union and about the advantages and benefits that membership offers this country.
There are two types of misapprehension—I use as kind a word as I can. A small minority cling to the idea that Britain should leave the European Union. There are not many people in that minority, but there are a few, and there are possibly one or two of them in the House. I hope that they will pause for thought and consider that, after such a long time, these four balanced, normal countries which we respect have decided that membership of the Union is in their national interests.
A rather larger minority is much more important, because it is much more difficult and has a damaging political impact. That minority constantly suggests—not often spelt out in concrete terms, but implied—that the answer is a free trade area. Hon. Members and others who hold that view must surely pause to think that those four nations who for years adhered to the European Free Trade Area and then to the European Economic Area have decided that that is not enough, that it is not the way to promote and develop their national interests.
They have decided that the benefits and advantages, together with the challenges and difficulties of European Union membership, will deliver the goods for Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden. As the majority of hon. Members well understand, what delivers the goods for the people of those nations is what will deliver the goods for the people in this country. That must be the message of the application for accession from those four countries.
Another point that I hope will be taken to heart is that each of those countries has a very strong and distinct

national identity; a sense of its own nationhood. It is inconceivable that they would be misguided enough to sign up for some smudgy blur of a centralised united states of Europe. That is not their concept; it is certainly not my concept or that of the great majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. That, too, is a message that I hope the doubters and the sceptics take home. I hope that they will then finally drop their neuroses, some of which have been expressed in speeches tonight.
I deeply respect the views of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on many matters. Indeed, I strongly share his views on NATO. However, I do not share his views on Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) trotted out the bogeymen. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have discovered that, lurking on the continent of Europe, there are people who are actually in favour of a centralised and united states of Europe. They seem to be terrorised by, and terrified of, that amazing discovery. They should have a little more confidence. I have confidence that we will achieve a union of the European Community that does not surrender to Mr. Bitterlich, who was cited by the right hon. Gentleman as evidence.
The one point on which I differ from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who otherwise made a very helpful speech, is his suggestion that there is a third option. I believe there may be 30 or 40 options. That is the excitement and challenge of developing and building the European Union. That challenge faces us all. I wish that the carping and the negativism would now stop, so that, in the months and years ahead, we can all—whatever party we belong to, or if we belong to none—try to work out the shape of the European Union and the British approach to the intergovernmental conference in 1996.
I am usually regarded as an optimist, but it would be optimism of a high order to believe that we could develop a national cross-party consensus towards the IGC. However, there is a broad agreement on the sort of relationship with our European partners that we want to develop. I also believe that the instinct felt by me and many others in this House is shared by many on the continent.
That is the challenge; that is the excitement. I hope that we can hold our debates without negativism and carping, and that we can join our 11 existing and four new partners in constructing a European Union that can get over the difficulties and meet the challenges from the rest of the word that we must surely face.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) about facing the challenges in the world. However, I am not sure that the encomiums of the treaty and the assumptions behind competing economic blocs meet that case. If there is to be a new world order and community in which tensions and economic competition do not develop into armed conflict, as they have in the past, we must do something better than the treaty before us.
Despite the depleted numbers in the Chamber at this stage of the debate, I sense that a new tone has been struck. There is an unusual axis between Hartlepool and Shropshire. Indeed, branches of that axis may even extend as far as Harrow. I join those who have extolled some of the thoughts behind the speech of my hon. Friend the


Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I do not think that he and I will agree, but I hope that the House agrees that some of my thoughts on enlargement are at least worthy of consideration.
The half-agreement that, uncharacteristically, appears to have broken out across the House between what are sometimes called in the press the well-known suspects at either extreme of the argument is due to the fact that those hon. Members have the ability objectively to analyse the observable facts. Even if they disagree on the direction from which we have come or should go, at least they can analyse the facts objectively.
I want to deal largely with the Nordic states. Austria, for obvious cultural, linguistic and historical reasons, is rather separate. I have not listened to every speech tonight, but I do not think that anyone has mentioned the existence of the Nordic Union. It is an existing, genuine, international organisation that has not been paid the attention that it is due. How many countries would give up the idea of a national airline? Scandinavian Air Services is an example of that.
Iceland is a member of the Nordic Union, but is not joining the EU. There has been the north Atlantic extension of Denmark into the Faroes. The Scandinavian countries look to the Baltic countries, with which their historic links are great. They have long-standing trade and cultural agreements. If they join the Union, there will be a greater and more rigid frontier between our friends in Scandinavia and our friends in the Baltic. That would not necessarily be wise.
Again, objective observation shows that all those countries have had a specific and important history which will not sit well with the way in which the treaties are currently operated. Sweden is a former imperial power whose upper House of Parliament of landowners voted itself out of existence in the early 19th century. It did not even remain an advisory body. Norway became a new nation only this century, having been part of a greater union—"union" having been a dirty word in Norway. Should it virtually give up being essentially its own state in the same century in which it achieved independence?

Mr. Denis MacShane: Norway might have become an independent state only at the beginning of this century, but it was always a proud and independent nation. There is a difference.

Mr. Spearing: Indeed some of our hon. Friends may make the same comment about our northern member of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend will probably have the facts at his fingertips later. The political fact that I emphasise was probably correct.
Denmark—a remarkable nation—has commonality with the others but is distinct. There is the old joke about the Schleswig-Holstein question, but it is no joke in Denmark—a country about the size of a Land in Germany that, through collective effort, produced an enormous social and agricultural revolution 100 years ago, largely through co-operative enterprise, not competition, that transformed that country's landscape.
When I spoke to Danish officials on a visit by Select Committee members not long ago, they had to admit that, in acceding to the European single agricultural policy and its development, they are risking the development of

Denmark's own agricultural industry, created over the centuries. Finland has every reason to be suspicious, because it has knowledge of large economic and political blocs on its frontier.
I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe, that each of those countries has a distinctive reason for the best sort of nationalism. The problem for some of us on this side of the House is that some of those with whom we occasionally have constitutional quarrels are not as keen on the best sort of nationalism. Unfortunately, no word in the English language expresses what is legitimate in being proud of one's community, in the sense that one is proud of one's own town. Nationalism has a nasty ring about it, for obvious reasons. There is a word gap that colours our own thinking.
Each of those countries, particularly because of their rigorous national environment, has developed over the past thousand years its own form of community life. Forest, lake, water and sea have meant that those countries and their communities of relatively small towns, villages and scattered settlements have produced public enterprise, public ownership, forms of public support and taxation that have grown through the centuries and are now extremely strong. There is a democratic collectivism, market management and support of public markets to an extent, perhaps, that is not found elsewhere in mainland Europe.
The impact on those qualities not only of the single market but of bankers at present is of concern in all those countries. Bankers in this country have a status rather greater than they deserve. I understand from Scandinavian friends that bankers in most Scandinavian countries do not have a high reputation at present.
In toto, the grain of political and social life of the Nordic applicants is, in fundamentals, contrary to a great deal of the fundamentals found within the treaties. There is much talk these days about "our vision for Europe." Anyone who wants to get off the hook talks about "our vision for Europe", "my vision for Europe" or "my party's vision for Europe". There is no question of vision—it is there in the treaties. One cannot get away from them, and they are decided in black and white.
The comment was made that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and others of us on this side of the House are backward. Fifty years ago, we in London knew what was going on, with the flying bombs, V Is and V2s. Members of my generation were determined that, as a result of that war, we would see something different. That is why many of us are pro-United Nations, pro-international and pro-Commonwealth. Until the altercation of the past 20 years, we would have been called pro-European.
The trouble is that these days, European does not mean the totality of Europe or co-operating nations. It means pro-treaty, which is very different. I put it to people in this country that to achieve the sort of Europe that my generation wanted after the war, we have—to use a British Rail phrase—the wrong sort of treaty. That is growing clearer even to some people who were the most vociferous supporters of Britain entering the Common Market in 1972. I fear that it will become clearer and clearer to the citizens of the applicant states as time goes by.
That is not clear to the Government. Today, the Foreign Secretary claimed that centralism had been checked. I agree with hon. Members in all parts of the House who say that that is not correct. Having signed a treaty that accelerates centralism, the Government claim that it has


been checked. They say that the federalists are on the retreat. There is a lack of knowledge in the House as to the difference between a federal constitution and a confederal constitution—the worst civil war in the English-speaking world was over the distinction between the two, and a unitary constitution.
The treaties are neither confederal nor federal, but are unitary, because of the unitary nature of the European Parliament, Council, Court and Commission. Above all, there is no separation of powers. Arguments about subsidiarity, on which I shall not enlarge now, show that all too well. The mud, fluff, seminars and conferences about subsidiarity show that there is no proper division of powers, which is the hallmark of a genuine confederation or federation.
I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool. I am glad to know that he is worried about the quality of scrutiny—and scrutiny does not mean control but only ability to see. That is not awfully easy, either. The Select Committee on European Legislation is in constant correspondence with Ministers about the inability even of that Committee to see certain documents—and the House does things rather better than many Parliaments in the Community.
The Swedes have a strong and democratic procedure called the remiss, which is like an extended Green Paper. Before any law or change at almost any level in any organisation can be enacted, having been suggested by a committee or party leader, it must go all the way down to the lowest democratic level, and then comes back again. Only at that stage is the equivalent of a Bill printed.
The Swedes will have a bad shock when it comes to the EEC. I have continual fears for the quality of democracy in such countries, which so many of us admire. When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who is not in his place now, he did not have an answer. I asked whether accession to the treaties would tend at least to diminish the quality of democracy in the applicant countries—and certainly their satisfaction with and confidence in their own Parliaments.
We all know how much the Nordic states have contributed to world understanding. We can all think of names from recent history—Bernadotte, Trigve Lie, Dag Hammarskjold, Olav Palme and now Mrs. Brundtland. One thinks also of Brandt: although that distinguished gentleman was from Germany, he had Scandinavian connections. The commission to which he gave his name and which is continued in some respects by Mrs. Brundtland is indicative of that. We know of the part that those nations have played in humanitarian enterprises throughout the world—in the United Nations. A common foreign and security policy? Are they signing up to that.
"Oh," say some of my hon. Friends and other people, "we could do so much more together." That is the sort of trite phrase that we hear so often. Of course we can, if we are united and if we believe in the cement of free co-operation, and not in coercion through constant negotiation, which is the hallmark of the European Community.
Unfortunately, we have some examples before us. We all know that the tragedy of Croatia was partly due to a hurried, and perhaps ill-considered, recognition by the European Union—it was nearly a union by that time—

brought about by political forces that we understand. How many organisations do we know of that cannot move because of internal politics?
The middle east is another great problem that has exercised the House for years. Did the European Union greatly accelerate the middle east problem to its solution? No. Norway greatly accelerated that process. Would it have been in a position to do so if it had been a member of the European Community from 1972? The thesis cannot be proved, but in all probability it would not.
The common currency is liable to undermine the ability of those fine communities in Scandinavia to operate their form of constitution and democracy, and may well undermine their way of life in the fields, forests, fjords and veldts. The enlightened analysis that is beginning to appear in this House ought to be available to the people of those fine nations before they decide in their referendums.

Mr. Roger Knapman: As Front-Bench spokesmen are inclined to say, I think that we have had a good debate. We heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary saying that he is winning his arguments in Europe—I am not sure whether he also said, "again". We also heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) saying that we are all speaking as sceptics.
That made me very happy, until I read some parts of the treaty. Even in the preamble we find that the signatories are
DETERMINED in the spirit of those Treaties to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe on the foundations already laid".
So, although I am grateful to learn that my right hon. Friends are in good heart, I wish that some of that could be conveyed to the treaty's draftsmen.
I am sorry that the treaty is not a fraction more contentious. Then some of us could have the uplifting, not to say novel, experience of wandering through the same Lobby as many of our colleagues when voting on European business.
The Bill is merely one page and seems reasonably uncontentious, but, for those who care to read it, it is based on a 389-page treaty, in which there is quite a lot of meat.
Many people say that, at the time, the Single European Act was thought merely to be an Act to enable the completion of the single market. The real relevance of qualified majority voting was perhaps realised only at a later stage. In other words, there was a sting in the tail, and I wonder whether this single page Bill has a sting in its tail, such as qualified majority voting.
I tend to view all such matters according to a speech that Disraeli once made when he advised all Conservative Governments to maintain the constitution, to uplift and uphold the conditions of the people and adequately to defend the country. I shall skip the part about adequately defending the country, on the basis that Mr. Deputy Speaker might rule me out of order and it might tempt the Whip on duty to reach for his pencil. As regards the advice to uphold the conditions of the people, the billions of pounds paid to cohesion funds, to build roads across Spanish deserts or Italian ravines, might better be spent on the national health service, education or even on reducing the public sector borrowing requirement.
On the question of maintaining the constitution, may I offer one example—article 44, which, in the main, is gobbledegook. It begins:


The share of Community fishing opportunities for stocks which are regulated by a catch limit, to be allocated to Norway, shall be fixed as follows, by species and by zone".
Many pages of zones and references follow and there are 20 explanatory notes at the bottom of the page. Having thought about the article at the weekend—not fully understanding how one can have a percentage of 88,543(13)(19), but never mind that—Norway seems to have got a very favourable deal. I am not sure, as a result, what right the British fishing industry—assuming that we still have one—will have to fish in Norwegian waters.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether, if British fishing companies purchase Norwegian companies after article 35 has expired three years from the date of accession, they can bypass article 44, having regard to the judgment in the Factortame case? I think that my hon. Friend would refer me to annexes 11 and 12, but there is a problem because if my hon. Friend tells me that the Norwegians have found a way and have a derogation to get round the Factortame case, may we please have one for our fishing industry? Equally, if the Norwegians have not found a way around the Factortame case, surely we ought to let the Norwegian public know about that before they vote in the forthcoming referendum.
A number of constitutional issues are involved, but in view of the time I shall not dwell on any more. Another issue worries me, however. There is no money resolution attached to the Bill. I wonder why the business managers of the House have not found such a resolution necessary. I wonder whether they do the House a disservice by not providing one. How can we know that no money resolution is necessary? If money is required for new purposes, surely the treaty would be void unless we have a money resolution, according to the rules of this House.
I take as my text a House of Commons Library research paper. I shall not read it but intend to make extensive use of the notes. It states that
Spending covered by headings 3 to 6 of the financial perspective was not touched on in the enlargement negotiations. A new financial perspective setting out the spending projections and own resource ceilings for the years ahead has not yet been agreed. Adjusting the ceilings for the different headings of the budget is likely to generate much debate. For example, it is not clear what increase, if any, there should be in the administrative budget.
Potentially, new money might be required for new members. Yet the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states:
The Bill, however, will have no direct financial consequences in the UK.
I wonder if that is so.
How will our contribution be judged? In terms of increased gross national product, the inclusion of the four EFTA states represents an increase of about 8 per cent., whereas in terms of the number of countries, their inclusion will represent an increase of 33 per cent. The Library brief continues:
It is unknown which of these increases, if either, will be used as the basis to justify an increase in administrative spending…the UK has a clear interest in restricting any increase
in spending on external action since it is
outside the Fontainebleu…system.
If that is the case, I wonder whether we can rely on the statement in the explanatory memorandum that
The Bill, however, will have no direct financial consequences.
The emphasis seems to me to be on the word "direct".

I am reasonably happy about the Bill—certainly happier than I have been about any previous European legislation—because it deals primarily with the question of accession. Some of us believe that, in general, widening is good—notwithstanding what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—while deepening, if we ever establish what it is, is not.
I would vote for the treaty, on the assumption that it is mainly about enlargement. According to the 398 pages of the treaty, however, under revised qualified majority voting we are ensuring more power for the centre and the substitution of bureaucracy for democracy. I am prepared to vote for the treaty because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured what I hope will prove an immensely valuable—indeed, epoch-making—triumph at Corfu, and therefore deserves our support.
During the forthcoming weeks and months, of course, many of us will wish to judge both my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Office on whether all the business in Corfu is purely temporary rhetoric—given treaties such as this, devoted to ever-closer union, we must have some misgivings about it—or whether Corfu signals a real determination to stand up for British interests. Along with most of the men and women on the street, in the pub and in the shops, I fervently hope that the latter is the case.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Like others who have spoken, I welcome the accession of the new member states: two republics and two kingdoms with republican tinges will add to the democratic orientation of Europe.
The problem of neo-fascism is now raising its head. I was disappointed at the way in which the Foreign Secretary gave the brush-off to widespread concern in Europe about the entry into the Italian Government of supporters of neo-fascism—open supporters of Mussolini and anti-semitism. It is clear that we must have diplomatic relations with the Italian Government, but Opposition Members are dismayed that the Foreign Secretary will not join those in other European countries in expressing at least some concern about those developments.
We look forward to the arrival of Nordic and Austrian Members of the European Parliament and their quota of officials in Brussels. They will get something of a shock, of course, when they discover the immense secrecy which surrounds the Council of Ministers. I do not know how many hon. Members are aware that every Swedish citizen has the right to see every letter to, and from, the Swedish Prime Minister's office; I cannot imagine No. 10 Downing street wanting Lord Archer's billets-doux spread all over the newspapers, but I commend that policy of freedom of information to my hon. and good Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whose occupancy will begin in a year or two.
I salute the struggle undertaken by the Financial Times and The Guardian to obtain details of the voting of the Council of Ministers—the release of which was blocked by our own Government, with others. I hope that the arrival of new Ministers from the four acceding states will help to dampen that British disease of secrecy and to shape a more democratic and open Europe.
As a materialist, I am grateful for the fact that—as the explanatory memorandum of the Bill makes clear—there will be no cost to our country. According to the latest Eurostat figures, Britain has for the first time moved into


the bottom half of the league table of economic wealth in the European Union, expressed in terms of per capita gross domestic product; we are below the average for the 12 European member states, and we shall be even further into the second division—along with Greece, Portugal and Spain—when Sweden, Austria and Norway join the Union.
Perhaps the Spanish question had something to do with the fact that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), went to Spain recently—or rather not to Spain, but to Catalonia: we are being very particular about nations tonight—where he made a speech in which he criticised the values of the European Union as expressed by most of its member states. He was kind enough to send me a copy of that speech in the original Spanish, and it was most illuminating. Nowhere in it are the words "European Union" or "European Community" to be found; the vision of Europe—the only term used in the speech—expressed by the Government through the Chief Secretary in Barcelona was a vision of a simple free trade area, with no barriers to the exchange of goods and services.
We all know that the Chief Secretary has a major vision of the future—or perhaps I should say a post-Major vision—in which the values and necessities that have led the acceding countries to join the European Union are not considered. I await with interest his thematic speech on national sovereignty, in which he must distance himself still further from the Government's position on Europe if he is to be true to the course on which he has embarked.
I do not know whether the Chief Secretary went to see a bull fight during his stay in Barcelona, but I am assured by my many Spanish friends that Britain will be a truly European country only when bull fights are allowed in Hyde park. I am sure that no House of Commons of which I would wish to be a member would permit such a thing; for the humble Spanish business man who wants to export his sport to Britain, however, to ban bull fighting is to interfere with his right to trade.
I have no problems with British sovereignty when it comes to banning bull fighting, but I understand that British farmers are not happy with the sovereignty of the German Parliament when it comes to banning British beef. I also understand that British airline companies were not happy when the French sovereign Parliament and Government wanted to ban flights to Orly, and that British ferry operators are not happy about the Spanish Government's current refusal to run a service between Spain and north Africa. Certainly, steel workers in my constituency of Rotherham are not happy about the sovereign Parliament-backed decision of the Italian Government to maintain subsidies for steel plants in Italy, thus damaging the competitive market that steel producers rightly demand in Europe.
I remain a great believer in the sovereignty of free peoples and nations in deciding their destiny, and their right to join like-minded nations in common projects—NATO, the Nordic Union mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) or, indeed, the European Union itself. Conservative Euro-sceptics, however, should be careful before making the Chief Secretary to the Treasury their standard bearer. He is not at all interested in the sovereignty of the British people in Parliament; he is interested only in the sovereignty of the global capitalist market. If every last British citizen were employed by a foreign firm, if every economic decision affecting the United Kingdom were taken in the United

States of America or Japan, if English land were sold to stage Spanish bull fights at a profit, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury would not care because for him neither the nation nor its citizens count for aught against his beloved global market.
The Chief Secretary's position is coherent. It involves the new totalitarianism of the market, in which all human values are replaced by money values. His argument is not about British sovereignty or protecting the nations that make up the United Kingdom, a subject on which many Conservative Members spoke so eloquently during debates on the Maastricht treaty and today.
How can such sovereignty be protected? I turn to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and that faced by the proud Nordic nations. They have decided that their sovereignty can best be enhanced through co-operation with the other nations of Europe. Austria, which more than any other state in 20th century Europe knows what it means to lose her sovereignty, has decided both through parliamentary debate and through a referendum that the best protection for Austrian values and prosperity lies in full partnership with the rest of Europe.
Unlike the British people, countries such as Austria and Finland have experienced the full raging of communist, capitalist and fascist totalitarianism in the 20th century. The new intolerance of the uncontrolled, unaccountable and unregulated market is in full flow across the world. Day by day, unemployment lines grow, civil wars break out and our streets are less safe to walk in. That shows the new totalitarianism of money power over human and democratic values.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman explain in his analysis why the least regulated markets throughout the world have the highest level of employment? One has only to consider countries such as the United States of America or those in the far east to realise that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I think that hon. Members should return to the subject of Europe.

Mr. MacShane: I shall return to that subject and cite Switzerland, where I worked for many years, which has maintained full employment and which is the most regulated country in Europe. As they say in Switzerland, if it is not forbidden, it is compulsory.
The new European Union must succeed in defeating the new totalitarianism of money power if we are to create a world that is both economically efficient and spiritually and socially rewarding. I welcome the accession of the four new members to the European Union because they will strengthen the human and democratic values of Europe. While working with the grain of the market, they will not blindly worship Mammon, the God of the new, all-powerful market totalitarians.

Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a speech in what has been a fairly wide-ranging debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will forgive me if I do not follow his interesting but idiosyncratic analysis of the way in which European and modern world economies are developing.
I gladly welcome the likely accession to the European Union of Austria, Sweden, Norway and Finland for the reasons given by hon. Members, from whichever party—those countries' European cultural and democratic traditions and their participation in the economic and security structures that have developed in our continent since the last war. The Bill and the treaty are at best no more than an interim measure, a halfway house towards the new constitutional structure that we shall need in a wider and more diverse European Union and that we are perhaps midway to creating.
The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) alluded to some of the decision-making difficulties that were bound to arise with the widening of the European Community. The hon. Member for Rotherham said that he welcomed the fact that there would be new Members of the European Parliament from new member states and that new quotas of officials from Scandinavian countries and Austria would be arriving at their Brussels offices for the first time. A considerable proportion of those officials will be made up of the numerous translators who will be needed to cope with the additions to the list of official working languages that will be used in the European Community. Commissioners from the new member states will be appointed to a college of Commissioners which, even after the reforms introduced under the Maastricht treaty, is struggling pretty hard to find a worthwhile job for each member of the college.
Most important is the fact that, with the enlargement of the Community—with the four potential new members now, with the likely accession of the four Visegrad countries in the next five or 10 years and with the possible inclusion of other new member states in southern and eastern Europe thereafter—there will be a real problem over the decision-making process within the European Union. We saw that point illustrated in the debates—the Council of Ministers had to arrive at an acceptable formula for qualified majority voting. The hon. Member for Durham, North mentioned the problem of trying to strike the right balance between the right of small member states to be properly represented when the Community makes decisions and the right of the large nations, representing the largest share of the population of the Community, to have their influence fairly expressed.
In a Union in which unanimity will still be required for many important decisions, it will become increasingly difficult to take effective decisions and to manage business if we stick to the present allocation of competences as laid down by the existing treaties and to the present system for voting within the Council of Ministers. In the future, it will be easy for one small state to block the decision of, perhaps, the 19 or 24 other member states that form the majority. We have seen that difficulty arising already over, for example, the Greek blockade of Macedonia in defiance of the express wishes of the other member states of the Union. There is a risk that we shall end up either with a Community that is incapable of taking any decisions or with a Community whose policies are determined by the lowest common denominator of what might be agreed.
The constitutional problem could be tackled in various ways. One coherent, logical approach is the federal approach. Although I do not agree with the arguments put forward by Commissioner Delors, one must accept that his

proposals amount to a logical, carefully thought-out solution to the constitutional difficulties that are inevitable in a larger, wider European Union. Nor do I think that we should see the federal model as being the Delors model only. Chancellor Kohl is a man who, as a university student, helped to tear down the border posts between France and Germany. He is a man who, throughout his career, has been openly committed to some sort of united states of Europe. His may be a much more decentralised model than that coming from Mr. Delors, who springs from the French political tradition. The Chancellor would probably wish to see a European Union that amounted to the Federal Republic of Germany writ large on the continental scale—a very decentralised political structure, but a uniform political structure with the same political responsibilities being allocated to each member state and a common core of decision-making powers being held at the centre.
Such a federal Europe might be, in the words of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), a more democratic Europe, but it would be democratic only in the sense that there would be a right on the part of the majority of elected representatives across the continent to outvote the minority even if that minority included an almost unanimous expression of national opinion in one or two dissenting countries. Therein lies the trouble with the federal approach.
It is my firm belief that, although in some continental countries, especially among the political leaders of those nations, there is still strong support for the federal approach to Europe, the referendums in France and Denmark and the discontent in Germany at the prospect of losing the deutschmark show growing disquiet on the continent, and not solely in this country, about where that approach to the political future of Europe may lead. I do not believe that people here see themselves as Europeans first. They see themselves as British people first and their allegiance is to the affection for, and loyalty to, the nation. Perhaps, after that, their allegiance is to the common cultural and political traditions that we share with other nations on the continent of Europe.
British interests would be best served by a simpler, looser political structure of the European Union in the future. That cannot simply be a free-trade area. Anyone who holds to that belief needs only to pick up a history book to see that no British ruler or British Government over many centuries doubted that British interests involved seeking to influence the outlook and the policy of the major powers of the continent of Europe. Even if, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, we have the wrong treaty at the moment, it is for that reason that it is the duty of any patriotic British Government who seek to act in the best interests of their citizens to engage with the political and constitutional structures that exist on the continent of Europe and to seek to advance our interests, negotiation by negotiation, treaty by treaty, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team are doing.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but the weakness of it is that he equates patriotic British interest with Conservative attitudes. He says that they are the same and they are not the same. Not only hon. Members on the Liberal


Democrats' Bench but, obviously, those on the official Opposition Benches interpret interest in a very different way.

Mr. Lidington: I have far too great a respect for the hon. Gentleman to seek in any way to impugn his wish or that of other Opposition Members to advance the British interests as they see them, but we would differ on how to identify those interests over particular political decisions.
I shall move on to how I see those arguments relating to the agenda which faces the Government as they approach the next IGC in 1996 or, perhaps, in 1997. The looser-knit European political structure—the simpler European Union, which would be in our best interests—will probably be beyond our capacity to achieve precisely because in many of our partner nations the wish to drive towards a much closer political union on the model envisaged by the founding fathers of the Community remains so strong. I honestly doubt whether public opinion in those countries, even in France and Germany, will catch up with that view of the political elite in time to influence the IGC wholly in the direction that we wish to go. The idea of a multi-speed Europe, which was advocated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the recent European election campaign, provides us with a way forward which may accommodate different views about how Europe should develop.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at present—is utterly wrong in believing that the approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Europe has failed to chime with the instincts of the British people. I am not aware of the feeling in Harrow, but in my constituency many people, Conservative supporters and others with no strong political affiliation, have told me that my right hon. Friend's approach is the way in which we should seek to establish the future of the European Union.
Do we describe that approach as multi-speed Europe, variable geometry, made-to-measure Europe or, as one journalist has described it, a Europe of consenting adults? Those terms offer only a choice of labels. The key is that the constitutional arrangements for Europe should be tailored to take account of the diversity of the Community that we are creating. That way forward will enable us to reconcile the need to develop European unity to ensure material prosperity in future and to ensure that we maintain the peace that has prevailed in the western half of the continent since 1945, thereby checking the destructive nationalism that has brought European civilisation to the brink of ruin twice this century.
At the same time, I believe that the approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Europe will enable us to deal with the reality of diverse national histories and national interests, along with the fact that most people's affection and loyalty lie first with the nation state and not with the supranational administration. It would be foolish indeed if we ceded the patriotic themes to the representatives of atavistic nationalism. I fear that that would happen if the European Union again started to take the federalist, centralist route and tried to place a straitjacket on the diverse ways of a Community that wears a costume originally devised for a Community of six in the 1950s.
As we approach the intergovernmental conference, I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I always

enjoy my hon. Friend's speeches but I felt that this evening he sounded rather like the Tory grandees of the early 1980s, who used to say that we could not dare to tackle trade union powers, old boy, and that the climate of the times was against us. Such sentiments were usually broached shortly before a grandee was elevated suddenly to another place. I would not like my hon. Friend to get measured for his ermine immediately.
When I talk to German politicians—especially those of a younger generation—I find that they want to discuss how to limit the accretion of competence to supranational level. They are well aware that the accession of Poland and other central European countries to the Union will break the common agricultural policy. They understand that that will have to be faced because the accession of central European countries is recognised as a critical matter of German national interest. Even French politicians are talking about variable geometry.
As we British politicians approach 1996 we must outline a robust agenda for constitutional change in Europe. We need to question the extent of the acquis communautaire. We must ask which competences we should consider repatriating to national level. We should raise in debate matters such as the Commission's sole right of initiative, the powers of the presidency and the balance of interest between the larger and smaller nations.
Although we have not yet won the debate, the time for ideas to prevail in the end is now more propitious than at any stage during the past two decades. I believe that the Europe of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister speaks is one that not merely is in Britain's best interests but offers prosperity and peace for the continent as a whole.

Ms Joyce Quin: Despite differences of view on many aspects of the European Union, today in the House there has been virtually unanimous agreement about, and support for, enlargement. The accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that people in those four countries will be encouraged, when they read accounts of this debate, by the solid support for their accession to the European Union which has been expressed in the House.
This wide-ranging debate contained many interesting contributions about the future development of the European Union after enlargement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) referred to some of the habitués of these debates about Europe. Despite some new contributions, there was a sense of continuity about the debate, in particular in relation to those who took part in it.
Before coming to the Chamber today, I read through the reports of the proceedings on the Single European Act. Many of the hon. Members who spoke today or who made interventions also took part in the debate on the Single European Act, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston).
Conservative Members who participated in the debates on that crypto-federalist measure, the Single European Act, and who spoke today included the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). We have heard today


interventions from the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who took part in the earlier debate, and I was intrigued to read that the hon. Member for Stafford said:
We tend to exaggerate the dangers of majority voting."—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 378.]

Mr. Cash: And I will repeat those remarks today. However, I also tabled an amendment to the effect that nothing in that legislation should derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. I am glad to say that that amendment was signed by one other Member of this place, and that was the former right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, Mr. Enoch Powell.

Ms Quin: There is at least continuity in respect of the views of Members for Wolverhampton, South-West.
Even the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory), who is to reply to the debate, surfaced briefly in the Committee stage of the measure. Rather to my surprise, he supported an amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. Perhaps the Minister had fallen prey to a bout of Euroscepticism at the time. Towering over that debate, as he admitted himself today, was the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He referred today rather graphically to his stained hands in relation to the former debates.
I am glad that there has been a wide welcome for enlargement of the European Union. I hope that we all want the Bill to receive a speedy passage through the House. It has been allocated two days for debate about which many people are happy. None the less, at the end of that time, we hope that there will be a ringing endorsement of enlargement. Labour will not support amendments which seek to delay or place obstacles before enlargement.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to the four applicant countries. I echo those tributes, particularly the tributes to their fine democratic and social democratic traditions. I want to refer to the outstanding role that the four countries have played in foreign policy, particularly through the United Nations, where their activities have probably not been equalled by other countries. I pay tribute to the Norwegian Labour Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, for the work she has done to highlight and draw attention to the issues of environment and development on a world scale.
My hon. Friends spoke in particular about the strong links between the Labour party and its counterparts in the four applicant countries and the similar views we hold on social, environmental, economic, regional and industrial issues. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West stressed the links between the Labour party and the traditions and beliefs of those four countries. He felt that that meant that a natural alliance would be established between the Labour party and those countries in the Union in future. The Opposition welcome their commitment to the social chapter, although it is not surprising to us given their record on social issues.
I am sure that those countries will be warmly welcomed in the European Union. As many hon. Members have already pointed out, however, referendums need to be held in the three Scandinavian countries, where public opinion

has varied from semi-enthusiasm to hostility. I hope that it will be persuaded of the merits of accession when the referendums take place in the autumn. It is encouraging that the terms of the accession treaty have been accepted in those four countries, so there is no outstanding difficulty about those terms. That augurs well for the future.
Many hon. Members who referred to enlargement talked about widening and deepening Europe—my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool and for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) stressed that. Some Conservative Members expressed the hope that widening the European Union would dilute it and that we would move towards establishing a free trade area. That is wishful thinking, and I am glad that some Conservative Members explicitly recognised that. The hon. Member for Harrow, East described it as phantasmagoric mythology.
I do not believe that the applicant countries would have applied to join the European Union if they had thought it was simply a free trade area. They are, after all, already members of the European economic area, and if they were completely satisfied with that arrangement it is unlikely that they would have applied for and been granted full membership of the Union.
Many hon. Members spoke about the effects of enlargement on the institutional arrangements in the European Union. We all agreed that we hoped that it would strengthen the democratic element in the Union. Hon. Members disagreed, however, on various aspects—for example, the extent of the Government's achievements, if they can be described as such, at Ioannina were disputed.
The Foreign Secretary said, once again, that we had won a review of the qualified majority voting system, but that was always the case, because it was mentioned in previous presidency conclusions that it would be possible to raise anything related to the institutional workings of the union at the 1996 intergovernmental conference. It was always on the agenda and a wide-ranging statement, a catch-all clause, in previous presidency conclusions made that absolutely clear.

Mr. Hurd: Let us be clear about this: what was possible, as the hon. Lady correctly said, is now certain.

Ms Quin: It was certain before, because a wide-ranging clause allowed countries to raise anything they wanted. Between now and 1996 other issues may crop up that Governments may want to raise and they will be able to do so because of the wide-ranging provision that already exists. We must bear that in mind.
There was a large measure of agreement in the House about making the decisions of the European Union subject to democratic scrutiny. Many of us who took part in the debate on enlargement in European Standing Committee B felt that it should have reached a wider audience and should have been part of a debate on the Floor of the House. Perhaps I could appeal to the media not to ignore the work of the European Standing Committees. Valuable work is done there by Members on both sides but, unfortunately, little attention is paid to their work.
The Commission's role in an enlarged European Union was also mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House, although who will preside over that Commission is still uncertain. Having vetoed a European Conservative, the Government seem to be prepared, according to one rumour, to rush into the arms of an Italian socialist as president of the European Commission. I wonder whether


the Minister of State will enlighten us about the current position, as we should be grateful for any information that he can give us. We wonder whether history will repeat itself and the Government will repeat the actions of the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness Thatcher, who apparently agreed to the appointment of Jacques Delors as Commission President when all that she knew about, him was that he was intelligent and energetic.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House discussed the preparation of the intergovernmental conference of the enlarged European Union. That is an important matter. Many thoughtful contributions were made about the kind of issues that we could raise at the IGC. While my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool raised the spectre of another Maastricht in terms of how we might deal with the matter in the House, he spoke for all of us when he said that he hoped that we would look seriously at all the options open to us regarding the future of the European Union.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady explain what the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) meant when he said that he was against a federal Europe but in favour of deepening and of nation states? I notice that he is now telling the hon. Lady the answer.

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was not so extraordinary that I could not have coped with it myself. The hon. Gentleman's concept of "federalism" seems to equate to the idea of a centralised super-state. May I say firmly that we have not criticised the Government for over-centralism suddenly to accept centralism at a European level. When my right hon. Friend spoke about "deepening", he was referring to areas on which we are on record as wanting further co-operation in Europe, particularly but not exclusively social and environmental matters. We want this country to play a full part in those negotiations and are worried that the Government's policy simply puts us on the sidelines.
Many hon. Members, again on both sides of the House, made some thoughtful contributions on future enlargement of the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) discussed the Baltic states and common foreign and security policy. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland on the application of Cyprus and Malta, and I add my voice to the general welcome given to eventual enlargement including countries of central and eastern Europe. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are all candidates in the short or medium term. Obviously, there will be problems with further enlargement, but many of them can be dealt with through transitional periods and special recognition of particular problems. Opportunities, too, will arise in any enlargement to include the countries of central and eastern Europe. For example, it is hard to imagine that the common agricultural policy could keep its present structure if many more countries join, especially if those countries already have a strong agriculture. We should therefore take the positive and constructive opportunities open to us.

Mr. Marlow: Further to the philosophical arguments about deepening and so on, is the hon. Lady in favour of a multi-track Europe, or does she believe that all member states must eventually move at the same speed?

Ms Quin: To a certain extent, given that enlargement will take place in phases, it is true that not all countries will

be at the same stage. However, we are worried that there will be a two-speed Europe, with Britain in the slow lane. That would not be in Britain's interest and we are very much against it.
Social policy has been mentioned by many of my hon. Friends. That is not surprising. I was delighted that in the conclusions to the Corfu summit the European Council welcomed the additional impetus coming from the new countries and described them as being
in the vanguard of the efforts to promote environmental and social protection, transparency and open government, areas considered essential by a large part of the Union's citizens".
I certainly endorse that.
We feel as strongly as ever that this country should be part of the European social chapter. In a debate last Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and I spoke about some of the appallingly low wage rates that are all too common in Britain today and the poor employment protection which gives people at work little say about their work and little protection against such things as unfair dismissal.
We believe strongly that the recent improvements in employment law in Britain have resulted from the impetus from Europe. For example, the right to a written statement, maternity rights and better rights for part-time workers spring from the European dimension, and that is something which we welcome strongly. Certainly, the examples cited by my hon. Friends, including that of Austria, show once again that there is simply no link between poor employment conditions and a high level of employment.
Earlier today, the Prime Minister spoke about Britain having a larger proportion of its population in work than most other European countries. Of course, the country which has a greater proportion of its population in work than we have is Denmark, which has high levels of social protection and good wages. Once again, that proves that there is no facile link between the two—poor wages and high employment—as the Conservatives constantly tell us.
On environmental policy, we feel close to the new countries, as, indeed, we do on economic policy. The former Swedish Finance Minister, Allan Larssen, helped to draw up an economic policy document for the Socialist group in the European Parliament and for the Confederation of European socialist parties—a publication which I would recommend to Tory Members in terms of its commitment to economic growth.
We have heard very different views about Europe from the Government side. From the beginning of the debate, the Foreign Secretary came under considerable pressure from his own Back Benchers. The Government seem to get buffeted this way and that. As they get so buffeted, it becomes less clear what the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in Government think and what is their strategy for Europe in the future.
It is also not clear who will win the battle. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North predicted that the Euro-sceptics would sweep all before them, although he referred at the beginning of his speech to the "virus" of Euro-scepticism. The thought of such a virus spreading across Europe caused me some alarm.
The right hon. Gentleman also paid a tribute to the former leader of the Conservative MEPs, Sir Christopher Prout. Many of the things that we have heard in this debate are completely at odds with the commitments made by Sir Christopher Prout and his former colleagues in the European Parliament—when the number of Conservative


MEPs was more than it is now—when they considered the matter of enlargement. They committed themselves to abolishing the unanimity provisions in the treaty and giving the President of the Commission a stronger role, and they implied that future revisions of the treaties could be carried out without the current requirement for unanimity and ratification by all national Parliaments. Those are different views from the ones expressed by Conservatives today. Within the space of a week, we have also had the astonishing spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying one thing about a single European currency and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying something completely different. I was asked about a multi-speed Europe. It seems that the Conservatives are not only in favour of a multi-speed Europe; they are also a multi-speed party in their consideration of these issues.
I conclude by strongly welcoming this enlargement of the European Union. I am pleased that the Labour party will be in the European mainstream during the enlargement process. We believe that we should all share the commitment by these new countries to a social Europe, an environmental Europe and a Europe of economic growth. With these four new countries in place and, I hope, with the support of a Labour Government in place in Britain even before the IGC, I trust that we shall be able to deliver policies that will mean a more prosperous Europe. That will be good news for Britain and for the British people.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): This has been a wide-ranging debate, as expected. It has ranged from the origins of the enlargement negotiations to a forward look at the prospects of bringing in more states in Europe in subsequent enlargement rounds—a process to which we look forward. Many right hon. and hon. Members have touched on our aims in the European Union. The Government believe strongly that the Union must maintain its free-trading vocation, which is why we put so much store by the successful conclusion to the Uruguay round last year.
We also believe that the EU must attend to the health or otherwise of the European economy. We must pay more attention to the problems of unemployment and of how we can turn economic growth into more jobs. That is why the Conservatives promote policies of deregulation, of lightening the burden of employment costs and of making labour markets work better.
The United Kingdom opt-out from the social chapter has become ever more important over the months, a point frequently made this evening by Conservative Members. There has also been greater cohesion in European foreign policy, and measures are being taken to tackle crime and justice matters by means of the intergovernmental pillars set out in the Maastricht treaty.
We realise that all this is not enough for the European Union to regain its dynamism; it must continue to expand. Thus it was that the idea of four new member states joining the Union had long been advocated by the Government. It was during the British presidency of two years ago that the negotiations were finally given the necessary impetus. In

the event, they took rather more than a year, but that was still easily a record compared with previous enlargement rounds.
All four Eftan states are instinctively free trading, all are fully democratic and all have a well developed sense of nationhood—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) among others. All are already in the European economic area, so they already enjoy a good measure of free trade with the EU. But their Governments believe that that is not enough. They want to be on the inside, shaping the rules and participating in the development of a common European foreign policy instead of being relegated to the status of spectators as the EU develops.
The European Union is now exerting a strong magnetic field on surrounding European states. Many speakers in this debate have therefore looked beyond this enlargement round to the next, and even to the one after that. Already six additional states have applied to join the EU: Turkey, Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus. Some of them are not proceeding at present, for various reasons, but it was absurd and wrong of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to suggest that the Prime Minister was ruling out Cypriot accession before a resolution of the dispute in the island. My right hon. Friend was rightly facing up to the difficulties of bringing a divided island into the European Union because, at least on the face of it, that would conflict with the requirements for free movement of people and goods in the Community.

Dr. Cunningham: How is it that we could contemplate a divided Germany in Europe but not a divided Cyprus?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Gentleman is a master of misleading analogies. If he had studied better the problems of Cyprus, he would know that bringing in a community with ethnic divisions which date back to the invasion of northern Cyprus by Turkey during the period of office of a Labour Government would create substantial difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to draw attention to those problems. That is not being negative: it is being realistic and constructive and facing the issues. That is what government is about.
Future enlargement of the Union will raise important institutional questions touching on such matters as the size of the Commission and the qualified majority voting arrangements, and will also raise problems of cost. My right hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) rightly and eloquently spoke about the difficulties of contemplating enlargement to include central and eastern European countries in the light of the common agricultural policy. It is doubtful that the CAP as structured at present and the current structural funds could survive if countries from behind the former iron curtain joined the Union.
The present round of enlargement has not put the CAP under such pressure. Agricultural prices in three of the four countries are substantially higher than those that obtain in the rest of the Community. Bringing them down to the same level will mean substantial expenditure. However, because the four states, with the possible exception of Finland, will be net contributors to the budget, the problem of unacceptable and unsustainable costs does not arise at this stage.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) suggested that we should engage with the


countries of central and eastern Europe in foreign and security policy before they join the Community in their entirety. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We can make progress on some of those issues now but others will remain for the intergovernmental conference in 1996.

Mr. Cash: Would my hon. Friend care to repeat what I understood him to say during the European elections—that he regarded a single currency as liable to dilute our sovereignty and that, from his point of view at any rate, although not speaking on behalf of the Government, it was not a satisfactory move in the right direction?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I was correctly reported during the press conference to which my hon. Friend draws attention.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) raised the question of the study or reflection group.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry. I am answering a point raised in the debate. It is incumbent on me to reply to points already raised rather than to respond to new ones.
I can assure the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney that the group will consider a wide range of contributions not only from member states but from non-governmental sources. I hope that, through channels such as Select Committees, the House will find ways of contributing in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference. The right hon. Gentleman courteously informed me that he would not be here for the conclusion of the debate, so perhaps I can send him a message through the Official Report, which he may read tomorrow. The Luxembourg compromise, about which he was concerned, still exists. He was anxious about its health. I can confirm that, whereas it may be asleep, it is none the less alive—indeed, the French Government reaffirmed their support for it during their Maastricht debate.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have a number of points to answer.
There was some speculation about the attitudes of applicant states and how they would use their influence in the European Union after they had joined. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) believes that they will be enthusiastic volunteers for a deeper, more integrated community. They are all vigorous democracies and all views have been expressed within them.
It is worth referring to recent remarks by Cabinet Ministers in those states. In particular, I want to quote Carl Bildt, the Prime Minister of Sweden. He thanked this country for our influence in smoothing the way to accession and said that Britain was
instrumental in the shaping of a new Europe that is larger, more open and less intrusive.
On the question of social issues, which was raised more than once in the debate, the same Prime Minister said:
While the European Community should have a social dimension, most of the social policy issues are better dealt with at local, regional and national level.
I hesitate to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), but I think that he was saying that the advent of the four countries would make monetary union more likely. I can give him

some reassurance because Sweden's Finance Minister, when asked about Sweden's participation in the third phase of European monetary union, said:
That depends on when we satisfy the entry requirements and also on when we want to be included…Sweden will not automatically become a member of the final monetary union just because we ratify our membership of the EU.
I hope that that note of caution will be of some reassurance to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If I have a few minutes to spare at the end of my remarks I will give way to hon. Gentleman, as I know he has not made a speech.
We all recognise that the four member states will not line up with us on all issues. It would be odd if they did and that would not be the sort of European Union in which they believe. They have different attitudes, traditions and interests. Defending those interests is fully compatible with membership of the European Union. That was evident during the negotiations, which were long and hard fought. We protected our interests and they protected theirs.
On the question of fisheries, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) that in all important respects we fully protected the British fishing industry. Indeed, the chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations wrote to the Government after the negotiations saying:
The satisfactory outcome to the accession negotiations…is very welcome indeed.
My hon. Friend raised a number of specific issues about fisheries which I do not have time to respond to now, but I will write to him.
The debate raised a new and startling development in Labour policy. Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen still retain the capacity to surprise us. We heard news of a new opt-out by the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Copeland announced a ban on any dealings with Ministers in the new Italian Government from the National Alliance party. [Interruption.] I am getting it exactly right. The right hon. Gentleman called them neo-fascists, although, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, that is not how they describe themselves. The right hon. Gentleman is digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole. He is saying that any future Labour Government would boycott any meeting with those individuals, including any Council meeting. Five Ministers from that party are in the new Italian coalition Government. In the unlikely event of there being a Labour Government, we would have an empty British chair at Transport, Agriculture and Environment Council meetings. Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman intended this, he is advocating an opt-out by the United Kingdom not only from policies discussed at those Council meetings but from any chance of defending Britain's national interests at those meetings.
I cannot imagine a more fatuous policy based on such a petulant reaction to the result of an Italian general election. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North rightly said, that attitude is bizarre and sanctimonious—and it is almost incomprehensible from a Labour Front-Bench spokesman with any pretension or aspiration to office.
The Bill and the treaty are an invitation to the House to approve and to ratify the accession of four new member states. Those countries do not countenance membership to


submerge themselves in a formless and shapeless Union or to lose their identity like lumps of sugar in a cup of tea. As Finland's Prime Minister said recently:
The European Union is made up of independent and sovereign states that have voluntarily decided to exercise their jurisdiction together on certain issues.
All of us on the Conservative Benches agree with that sentiment.
We hope that the three referendums yet to be held in applicant states will endorse membership. The last referendum will be held at the end of November, which is why the Bill is presented to the House now. If one or more of the referendums were to fail, no renegotiation of the treaty would be necessary. A Council decision would be taken to make the consequential changes that may be necessary to such matters as qualified majority voting.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked what would happen to the treaty's qualified majority voting figures if one or more of the applicants failed to ratify. The answer is that the allocation of votes to the non-acceding country would be deleted from the treaty and any new voting threshold set. Article 2 of the treaty provides for that. The threshold would be reset at a lower level, but that would not alter in any way the decision made at Ioannina, which protects our position when 23 votes are in opposition to a prospective decision or piece of European legislation.
The debate made clear the support that exists in all parts of the House for entry of the four EFTA states. We see that not only as a welcome step in its own right, but as a milestone on the way to a Europe that is whole—a Europe that achieves freedom while respecting diversity. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Scottish Business

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—

(a) Standing Orders No. 93 (Public bills relating exclusively to Scotland), No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee), No. 96 (Scottish estimates) and No. 97 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland) shall be repealed, and the following Standing Orders A to H below shall have effect;
(b) Standing Orders No. 13 (Arrangement of public business), No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 91 (Special standing committees) shall be amended as set out below; and
(c) other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.


A. Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)
(1) There shall be a standing committee called the Scottish Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing Scottish constituencies; and of which (subject to paragraph (6) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) the quorum shall be ten.
(2) The business of the Committee shall include—

(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order B (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));
(b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates));
(c) ministerial statements proceeded with in accordance with Standing Order D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements));
(d) bills referred to it for consideration in relation to their principle, in accordance with Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle));
(e) motions relating to statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments, referred to it in accordance with Standing Order F (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments, &c));
(f) motions for the adjournment of the committee, notice of which has been given in accordance with Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)); and
(g) motions for the adjournment of the committee, to be made after the interruption of business, as provided in Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)).


B. Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)
(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Scottish Grand Committee by Scottish Office ministers or Scottish law officers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Scottish Grand Committee.
(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.
(4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no question shall be taken later then three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.
(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired:
Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
C. Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)
(1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Scottish Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.


(2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph ( I) of this order must relate to the official responsibilities of Scottish Office ministers or Scottish law officers.
(3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.
(4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.
(5)(a) No member of the committee except the minister or law officer replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.
(b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the minister or law officer replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other members of the committee may speak for three minutes.
(c) The chairman may direct any member of the committee who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.
(6) Notices of subjects under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:
Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
D. Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)
(1) The chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee may permit a Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer, whether or not a member of the committee, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.
(2) Ministerial statements may be made for the purpose of—

(a) facilitating the questioning by members of the committee of the minister or law officer, as the case may be, about a matter relating to his official responsibilities as provided in the second column of the eleventh sub-paragraph of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments), in which case proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion not later than three-quarters of an hour after their commencement; or
(b) announcing the policy of the Government on a matter relating to Scotland or the response of the Government to an event relating to Scotland, in which case proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.


(3) Ministerial statements may be made—

(a) at the commencement of a sitting; or
(b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or
(c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.


(4) A minister or law officer making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a member of the committee, may not do so from the body of the committee; and such a minister or law officer shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
E. Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)
(1) After any public bill has been first printed, the Speaker shall, if of the opinion that its provisions relate exclusively to Scotland, give a certificate to that effect:
Provided that a certificate shall not be withheld by reason only that a provision of that bill amends Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 or Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.
(2) On the order being read for the second reading of a bill so certified, a motion may be made by a member of the Government (or in the case of a private Members' bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee'; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business:
Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.
(3) A bill so referred to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the

bill in relation to its principle;' and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of two and half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:
Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above shall be ordered to be read a second time on a future day.
(5) On the order being read for the second reading of a bill to which paragraph (4) above applies, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or, in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee)' : and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
(6) If a motion made under the preceding paragraph be agreed to, the bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time, and shall stand committed to a Scottish Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee).
F. Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments, &c.)
(1) Where—
(a) a Member has given notice of a motion for a humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or of a motion that a draft of an Order in Council be not submitted to Her Majesty in Council, or that a statutory instrument be revoked or be not made, or that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or
(b) a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument be approved,
a motion may be made by a member of the government, 'That the instrument (or draft instrument) be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee'; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
(2) The committee shall consider each instrument (or draft instrument) referred to it on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the instrument (or draft instrument)'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the motion, if not previously disposed of, not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; and shall thereupon report the instrument or draft instrument to the House without any further question being put.
(3) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraph 1(a) or 1(b) of this order, in relation to any instrument or draft instrument in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (2) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon; which may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
G. Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)
(1) On each of the days specified in an order of the House under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the Scottish Grand Committee, such motions of which notice has been given in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) below shall have precedence.
(2) A member of the committee giving notice of a motion for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall—

(a) also give notice of the subject to which he intends to call attention on the motion for the adjournment of the committee, and
(b) give such notice of motion and of the subject in writing not later than ten sitting days before that on which the motion is to be made:


Provided that the subject to which attention is called must relate to Scotland.


(3) The days specified for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall be allocated as follows—

(a) six at the disposal of the government;
(b) four at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition; and, in respect of parties other than that of the Leader of the Opposition,
(c) one at the disposal of the leader of the largest opposition party; and
(d) one at the disposal of the leader of the next largest opposition party:


Provided that a day specified in an order of the House under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) on which business is to be interrupted at or after half-past three o'clock shall, if no business other than that to which this order applies is set down for consideration on that day, be deemed to be two days for the purposes of this order.
(4) For the purposes of this order, the 'largest' and 'next largest' opposition parties in Scotland shall be those parties, not being represented in Her Majesty's Government and of which the Leader of the Opposition is not a member, which have the largest and next largest number of Members who represent constituencies in Scotland, and of which not fewer than three Members were elected to the House as members of those parties.
H. Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)
(1) A motion may be made by a member of the government providing (or varying previous provision) for the Scottish Grand Committee—

(a) to sit on specified days at a specified place in Scotland, the sitting commencing at half-past ten o'clock, and proceedings being interrupted at such hour as may be specified;
(b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at half-past ten o'clock;
(c) to take questions under Standing Order B (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above;
(d) to hold short debates under Standing Order C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified; and
(e) to consider substantive motions for the adjournment of the committee under Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) on not more than twelve of the days so specified.

and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided after the time for opposed business:
Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Scotland, nor from considering at a sitting in Scotland business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.
(2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Scottish Grand Committee.
(3) Other than as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)), the government shall determine the precedence of the business appointed for consideration at any sitting of the committee.
(4) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above, or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).
(5) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned (except substantive motions for the adjournment of the committee under Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) which shall lapse).
(6) After the interruption of proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a member of the government, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman

shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.
That Standing Orders be amended as follows—
(i) Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business), by adding at the end of line 91 the words—
(11) A private Member's bill to which the provisions of paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) have applied, and which has been considered by a Scottish Standing Committee (or by a special standing committee), shall not be set down for consideration on report so as to have precedence over any private Member's bill so set down which was read a second time on a day preceding that on which the bill was reported from the Scottish Grand Committee under paragraph (3) of that Standing Order";
(ii) Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees), in line 1, by leaving out the words "Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee)" and inserting the words "Standing Order A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business))"; and
(iii) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees), by inserting at the end of line 13 the words—
Provided that, in the case of bills certified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) and committed pursuant to paragraph (5) thereof to a special standing committee, the three morning sittings may be held in Scotland".
I am glad to have the opportunity to put before the House this evening the changes to Standing Orders—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Will those Members who are standing and having a conversation please do so outside or sit down?

Mr. Lang: I am glad to have the opportunity to put before the House the changes to Standing Orders, which relate primarily to the work of the Scottish Grand Committee, and were envisaged in the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good", published in March last year. The changes will substantially complete the implementation of the proposals made in the White Paper, which have been, and will be, beneficial for Scotland.
The White Paper followed a serious and detailed consideration of Scottish constitutional issues and of Scotland's place in the United Kingdom, following a pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shortly before the 1992 general election. That was the process that became popularly known as "taking stock."
In the White Paper, we reaffirmed our belief in the importance of the Union to Scotland and of Scotland to the Union. At the same time, we acknowledged that, from time to time in Scotland, there has been real concern that the Union may not have been functioning as effectively as it might, and we faced up squarely to the need to make the proposals address such shortcomings. The White Paper sought to identify new ways to build on the existing strengths of the Union, recognising that that was a part of a continuing process with the overall aim of strengthening Scotland's place in the Union—an aim which few in the House will challenge.
I shall summarise the main elements of our proposals, so as to bring the House up to date on the most significant changes, before turning to the Standing Order changes.
The White Paper emphasised our commitment to Scotland's place in Europe. We have met our commitments to secure substantial representation for Scotland on the Committee of the Regions and to host a Europartenariat,


which was held in December 1993. Scottish Ministers and Scottish Office officials continue to attend meetings of the Council of Ministers when a discussion has a clear bearing on Scottish interests, and positive steps have been taken to further Scottish links with other parts of Europe.
The White Paper did much to bring to Scotland more decisions affecting Scotland, and much work has been done to transfer certain functions and powers to the Scottish Office. I shall draw attention to two particularly important examples.
First, the transfer to me of responsibility for the Scottish Arts Council took effect, as planned, from 1 April this year. It is now established as an independent body with its own royal charter, and I am confident that the council will serve the Scottish arts world well. With the creation of the new council, there is, for the first time, a unified funding structure for the arts in Scotland—all central Government support coming from the Scottish Office.
Secondly, I also took over responsibility for training policy in Scotland on 1 April. We already had in place unique institutional arrangements for the delivery of Government-funded training programmes with the establishment of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Island Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, leading to a better understanding of local economic demands and of the training required to meet them. My assumption of responsibility for training policy builds on that.
Significantly, it also rounds out my capacity to influence industrial development by enabling me to consider education and training in an integrated way. It accords well with the additional responsibilities that I recently assumed for funding the universities in Scotland—Scottish institutions, with United Kingdom and international stature, and an important part to play, along with other elements of the education and training system, in the enhancement of the skills base that is vital to our economic success.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State will know that, as a member of the Select Committee on Employment, I have followed developments—as has his Parliamentary Private Secretary—in local enterprise councils and training and enterprise councils, which developed from the experience of Boston private industry councils. In the Boston PICs, a responsibility was placed on the training manager to place people in employment, which is something that we welcome.
Given the present recession, does the Secretary of State accept that the quotas that he is demanding that those providing training should meet should not apply to those who are training people with special training needs or with physical or mental disabilities? A number of companies—especially those connected with the Scottish Association for Mental Health—are experiencing increasing difficulty in having their contracts renewed because of the quota arrangement.

Mr. Lang: I understand the specific point that the hon. Gentleman is making. If he wishes to pursue it with me, I shall be happy to look into the details. In general, however, I think that the local enterprise companies have a vital role to play—just as the training and enterprise companies do in England—in co-ordinating and delivering training schemes in the enterprise company areas for which they are responsible. Members of LECs, more than anyone else,

know the specific needs of their areas, and know how schemes can be adapted and made more flexible to suit particular requirements.
Those are just one or two examples of the many improvements in the handling of Scottish affairs that flow from the White Paper. Overall, the Government have a highly creditable record of success in delivering what the White Paper promised, improving the way in which the Union works and bringing important benefits to the people of Scotland.
In that context, and in the same vein, let me deal with the formal business that we are discussing—the changes being made to our Standing Orders to implement the proposals in chapter 6 of the White Paper "Scotland in the Union". Let me remind the House briefly what they are designed to achieve.
As the White Paper acknowledged, the criticism has often been made that there is too little time in our crowded Westminster schedule for Scottish affairs to be discussed fully and properly. We could debate that criticism at length, but I do not propose to do so; it would be hard to argue that there is too little time for Scottish business when we recently devoted 178 hours to the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, and two and a half days to Report and Third Reading.
For many years, under Governments of both complexions, there has been a solid programme of Scottish legislation. That programme has given the House opportunities to debate Scottish issues, either on their own or within the framework of United Kingdom debates to which they are relevant. More recently, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—also established by a Conservative Government—has provided a forum for particular issues to be examined in depth.
The Government have decided, however, that, in the spirit of Scotland in the Union, it is appropriate to seek ways of increasing the opportunities for parliamentary discussion of Scottish affairs. I emphasise that our measures are in no way intended to diminish opportunities for Scottish business to be taken on the Floor of the House; it is the Government's firm intention that matters which merit debate in the Chamber should continue to be given that opportunity. The changes that we are making are intended to provide additional opportunities, rather than a diversion of what we have now.

Mr. Alex Salmond: According to records that I have obtained from the Library, the Scottish Grand Committee last met in Edinburgh on 1 February last year. Why have no sittings taken place in Edinburgh since that debate on local government reform?

Mr. Lang: The question when the Scottish Grand Committee should meet and the question when estimates should be debated are the subject of negotiation between the usual channels. Part of the reason is that there has been less pressure than normal for meetings to take place in Scotland. I hope, however, that the measures that I am announcing will provide more opportunities for such matters to be debated not only in Edinburgh, but elsewhere in Scotland.
The Standing Orders are designed to produce the improvement that I have described from the beginning of the next Session. Our approach turns on providing an


expanded role for the Scottish Grand Committee: in effect, we would be creating for it a mini-Order Paper, modelled, in many respects, on the procedures of the House.
The Committee will be able to conduct general debates and debates on Second Reading of Bills, as now. In addition, it will have the opportunity for a question time; the opportunity to hear statements and take evidence from Scottish Office Ministers, including, where appropriate, those who sit in the other place; the opportunity to consider statutory instruments relating to Scotland; and the opportunity to have short Adjournment debates. We are also proposing a new procedure—unique to the Grand Committee—for short debates, with short speeches, on particular subjects raised by Scottish Members.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: New Standing Order D, entitled "Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)", states:
The chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee may permit a Scottish Office Minister or a Scottish law officer, whether or not a member of the committee, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him".
How much prior notice must be given to the Chairman?

Mr. Lang: Clearly, sufficient prior notice would be required before a Committee sitting took place as a result of a motion on the Order Paper, unless such notice had already been tabled in a sessional order or an order that had laid down the precise dates throughout a particular term of the Session. The point of the exercise is to act by consent and agreement across the Floor of the House, so the usual channels would be involved in negotiating precise details.
The Standing Orders provide a framework within which a calendar can be laid out at the beginning of each Session—or, more likely, each term. That might set out the dates of meetings in Scotland and at Westminster and identify those meetings at which questions, short debates and general debates are to be taken. The objective would be to achieve, by agreement through the usual channels, a satisfactory pattern of business that avoided difficult clashes with the other parliamentary demands on hon. Members' time. A calendar of that sort should ensure that days available for general debates in the Scottish Grand Committee were deployed to best advantage.
Our key change from the present arrangements would be the replacement of the present pattern of up to six estimates days and up to six matter days by provision for up to 12 general debates. It has been clear for some time that the present distinction between estimates debates and matter days debates is largely artificial. Both are in effect general debates on issues of current concern.
In addition, the present arrangements have led to difficulties and uncertainties over timetabling, which has created problems. That has been a particular feature of the estimates debates, which have traditionally tended to be bunched together in late June and early July. Those debates are at the discretion and disposal of the Opposition, who, for whatever reason, have not had full advantage of them in recent years. The minority parties have been particularly disadvantaged in that regard.
It is against that background that we propose the move to up to 12 general debates, to take place on substantive motions for the Adjournment, as provided under new Standing Order G. Of those general debates, four will be at the disposal of Her Majesty's Opposition, and one each

would go to the two next largest Opposition parties in Scotland, provided that they have not fewer than three hon. Members. In providing for days to be available in that way, we are following the principles that relate to Opposition days in the House, which work successfully.
I envisage that some of the general debates will be on matters that arise regularly: the "hardy perennials", such as public expenditure in Scotland. The timing of those debates and the way in which they count against each party's allocation of time would, as for other aspects of our proposals, be settled by agreement through the usual channels.
I do not propose to dwell at length on the technical details of the new arrangements. There has been ample opportunity for consultation with the Opposition parties, and the text of the Standing Orders, together with a detailed explanatory note, has been available in the House of Commons Library since 10 February.
The intention of the new procedures is not to displace the Second Reading of major Bills from the Floor of the House, but to provide an alternative route that may be more appropriate for measures such as law reform Bills, which are often squeezed out at present. The intention is also, in certain circumstances, to enable private Members Bills relating exclusively to Scotland to have a proper Second Reading debate.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State is aware that a Bill to enact many of the recommendations of various reports on legislation affecting children in Scotland would enjoy considerable cross-party support and might lend itself to some of the procedures that he is suggesting. Can we expect such a long-overdue measure in the next Session?

Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but I note what he says, and I take from that his party's willingness to contemplate the Second Reading of such a Bill in those circumstances.
In drafting the Standing Orders, the opportunity has been taken to simplify some of the complex and confusing procedures relating to the reference of business to the Scottish Grand Committee, and to the handling of Bills that have a Second Reading there. Those are explained in more detail in the companion to the Standing Orders, which has been in the Library since February, and I am sure that the procedures will be found to be simpler and more effective.
Overall, the proposed changes will contribute to making the Scottish Grand Committee a more effective forum for debate.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Although the Scottish Grand Committee may well become an effective forum for debate, can the Secretary of State explain how on earth that will extend democracy in Scotland? What is the use of having another talking shop if the Scottish Grand Committee will not have an effective vote on the principle of legislation? Surely one cannot have credible democratic scrutiny and accountability if one cannot vote.

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that democracy is confined to voting, he does not understand what democracy is all about. It happens to be quite a lot about debating and talking. The word "Parliament" derives from the French word "paler".
It may be appropriate to say a word about what I envisage for the Committee's sittings in Scotland. I think that areas other than Edinburgh should occasionally have the opportunity to host the Committee's meetings. I have asked my officials to provide assistance to the House authorities, who are ultimately responsible for making arrangements for sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee, to identify suitable premises.
I should also mention briefly the other changes to the Standing Orders proposed tonight. The main one is the amendment—

Sir David Steel: Does the Secretary of State recognise that if the Scottish Grand Committee goes on tour, it is even more important that we have proper notice of the meetings of the Committee? One of the greatest criticisms over the years has been of the idea that Members of Parliament are sitting around with free Tuesday and Thursday mornings waiting for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet. That is not true. Notice has been lamentable, especially this Session.

Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member. I recall that, when I was the Scottish Whip many years ago, that was a complaint he had then, and he still has it now; he has been consistent in the matter. I am happy now to be able to meet his concern by bringing forward proposals that will give him precisely the predictability he seeks. Except in the case of occasional statements, which may have to be made at relatively short notice, the programme will be laid down well in advance.
I refer especially to the amendment to Standing Order No. 91, which deals with Special Standing Committees. It will enable Special Standing Committees on Scottish Bills to meet in Scotland for the three sittings of oral evidence for which the Standing Order provides.
As I have said, I believe that the changes will provide a fuller opportunity for Scottish affairs to be debated in a Scottish context, although at the same time fully within the framework of the procedures of this House and the existing constitutional arrangements, which have served Scotland well. I commend them to the House.

Mr. George Robertson: The amendments to the Standing Orders derive, as the Prime Minister said, from the exercise that has become, he claimed, "popularly known"—I believe unpopularly named—as the "taking stock" exercise. It was embarked on by the Prime Minister in response to widespread public concern in Scotland about the fact that, in the 1992 general election, 75 per cent. of the people voted for parties in Scotland calling for one form of constitutional change or another and only 25 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Conservative party—a party that was pledged and committed to making no serious change in the constitutional arrangements relating to Scotland inside the United Kingdom. That left a serious problem of credibility for the Government—a problem that remains.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that everyone who voted for his party, for the Liberal Democrats or for the Scottish National party voted exclusively and solely for constitutional change?

Mr. Robertson: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that they voted for those three parties, and that it was integral to the programme of those parties that there would be constitutional change and that there would be a Scottish Parliament. It is a bit rich of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to say that. Shortly after the general election, he was appointed vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland. Its support went from 25 per cent. of the electorate in the general election to 2.3 per cent. of the electorate in the Monklands, East by-election two weeks ago in which the hon. Gentleman played a starring role. The hon. Gentleman is not in much of a position to speak as he does here.

Mr. Salmond: I hope to be helpful to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I was interested in the intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). Is the hon. Member for Hamilton aware that, in the most recent opinion poll that tested these matters, no fewer than 51 per cent. of Conservative supporters were in favour of some form of constitutional change? Admittedly, it was a very small sample.

Mr. Robertson: I find myself in the astonishing position of thanking the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for an intervention. I know that he has problems of his own inside his party and that may be why he is being helpful on this occasion. I notice that Mr. Jim Sillars, the former Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Govan, said that the result in Monklands, East was a protest vote. He continued:
anyone who denies that is denying reality, so in a sense it almost didn't count.
However, I still welcome the comment of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. In that opinion poll, 48 per cent. of those who said that they supported the Scottish National party supported a Scottish Parliament inside the United Kingdom, which is the policy of the Labour party. The party of government had at that point a serious problem of credibility and sought to address it through a taking-stock exercise.

Mr. Bill Walker: If a future Labour Government did not have a majority of seats in England and did not have a substantial vote of support in England in percentage terms, as the hon. Gentleman has quoted, does that mean that a future Labour Government would make no constitutional changes affecting England?

Mr. Home Robertson: The cheque is in the post.

Mr. Robertson: That is not an expensive question at all. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if, in the next general election, the Labour party puts forward a prospectus calling for a Parliament in Scotland, an Assembly in Wales and, ultimately, regional assemblies throughout England, we shall pursue that prospectus because we believe in decentralisation in the United Kingdom. The reality of the vote in 1992 was that 75 per cent. of the population—convincing by any standards—voted for parties which called for major constitutional change, yet we were faced with a Government who said that the answer to that was no change at all.
I recall that in March, in a profile of the Secretary of State for Scotland in The Guardian, he acknowledged the dilemma that he faced. He acknowledged that he led a party in Scotland which did not have a majority, as part of a Government elected by United Kingdom figures. He said


that that had led him to deal with problems with a little circumspection. Of course, the difficulty is that there is precious little circumspection in any of the policies that the Government are now following.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I have given way enough in this brief debate. Welcome though visitors to the debate are, I should move forward.
In the light of that problem of credibility, in the light of that result in 1992, the new Standing Orders are a pathetic and totally inadequate response—

Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has just referred to visitors in the Chamber. Is not this indeed the Parliament of the United Kingdom? Can you confirm that there are absolutely no visitors in the Chamber tonight?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Every hon. Member here is a democratically elected Member of this House. All hon. Members have a right to speak in the House and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman brought that point of order to my attention.

Mr. Robertson: I agree with you, Madam Speaker. However, I do not think that the use of the word "visitors", or even of the word "passengers" could be possibly ruled out of order. I have never been one to say that anybody should be denied the right to speak, but hon. Gentlemen who are coming to such debates for the first time do not have a proprietorial right to intervene on any speech that happens to be made, however much respect I have for the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who may have had a greater interest in the previous debate.
The new Standing Orders are pathetic and a totally inadequate response to the overwhelming public demand for a directly elected Scottish Parliament in Scotland. That is what is wanted, that is what is needed and that is what the people of Scotland have repeatedly asked for. The Secretary of State's opening speech underlined the need for that Parliament by describing the new powers which have come to him as a result of the exercise. He has taken upon himself responsibility for the Scottish Arts Council. He has taken upon himself the powers over training policy and the way in which that is to be integrated into industrial policy. He has taken upon himself the control of university finance in Scotland. The panoply of powers controlled directly by the Secretary of State for Scotland has increased dramatically and the only accountability that we are being offered is through the new Standing Orders.
The Standing Orders in no way remove the obligation to look much more radically at what the people of Scotland want, especially in the light of the further collapse of Conservative support from 25 per cent. at the previous general election to under 14 per cent. in the regional council elections and in the European elections. Let us not overlook the fact that Conservative support in the most recent by-election dropped to a mere 2.3 per cent., the smallest proportion and the lowest absolute vote scored by the Conservative party since, I believe, 1874. Surely Conservative Members should be concerned about that. Conservative Members must regard 1992 as the halcyon

days when their party was achieving a 25 per cent. share of the vote. No doubt they think back to that time with considerable nostalgia.
The proposals before us will improve the handling of Scottish parliamentary business and, therefore, are to be welcomed. There will be greater opportunities to question Ministers. We shall be able to cross-examine Ministers in the other place. These measures constitute a small but valuable step forward. Other improvements are the ideas of structured and timetabled Grand Committee debates on pre-determined issues, Adjournment debates and Special Standing Committees in the context of specific Scottish Bills. I welcome those concepts and look forward to the negotiations that will take place between all the parties to try to establish a timetable and a framework that will be to the convenience of us all. It is not just the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who has now left the Chamber, who has been inconvenienced by the way in which previous debates were arranged.

Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the representation of Scottish Labour Members this evening—about 20 per cent.—is representative of the attendance that we might expect at future Scottish Grand Committees? That would be in line with the most recent Scottish Grand Committee, which was held at Edinburgh, when Labour attendance was poor.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should put the matter to the test at a Scottish Parliament in which real legislative powers are vested. That would be the ultimate test. The proposals before us represent only a small move forward, but one which I am willing to welcome. They do not, however, take us anywhere near what the Scottish people want and deserve.

Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene, whether he describes me as a visitor or a passenger.
It is a legitimate English interest to explore a little further what the Labour party means by a Scottish Parliament. If it means that a Scottish Parliament will, for example, be debating and deciding upon Scottish education or Scottish health, we in England, much as we shall miss the representation from Scotland, which takes such an interested part in our debates on such large matters, will be unwilling to hear Scots debating matters here that we are not allowed to debate in Scotland.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman comes from Kent, yet another part of the country which voted Labour in the European elections. I am sure that that is part of his interest in the wider debates that are taking place here.
We do not have a neat arrangement in the United Kingdom. We do not have something that would easily be described in the neat checks and balances of a written constitution. There are obvious problems. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent is sitting behind the Secretary of State for Scotland, who exercises huge powers over specifically Scottish legislation. As has been said, the Government are in the process of ramming through a measure to reorganise Scottish local government. The Bill, in all its manifestation, is bitterly unpopular in Scotland. That is one of the reasons for the Conservative party being so unpopular north of the border. It is dropping down almost out of sight in electoral terms. The Secretary of


State is able to proceed, however, because a majority of Members come from south of the border. Such is the nature of the United Kingdom.
The creation of a Scottish Parliament with accountability for the decisions taken on Scottish legislation, with the involvement of the Scottish people, would produce yet another facet of the developing union that the Government talk about with such great pride. I believe that such a Parliament would strengthen that union. If the Secretary of State examined the proposal in greater detail, I believe that he, too, would welcome it.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I was moving to a lengthy point, but in the light of that, I will accept an intervention.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, if a Scottish institution produces Scottish legislation that affects England and all other parts of the kingdom in respect of road traffic, safety or health, we shall be creating a schismatic situation which will destroy the Union, not strengthen it?

Mr. Robertson: I entirely disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I remind him of an incident a couple of months ago when he attempted to speak in the First Scottish Standing Committee which was considering sheriff courts fees. A conspiracy of Whips and others prevented the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a Scottish Member, even expressing a view in that Committee. At the end of that Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed anger and disgust at the fact that a measure had been pushed through without a Scottish Conservative voice being heard. That is an anomaly which the hon. and learned Gentleman is apparently willing to swallow. Therefore, I do not see why he should not be willing to accept that the democratic will of the Scottish people, through a Parliament inside the United Kingdom, should have just as much validity as what he swallowed on that occasion.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give wavy?

Mr. Robertson: No, I cannot give way at this point. It would be unfair to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and to others if I were to accept this as a dialogue between Members rather than a brief speech.
Labour, and I personally, have consistently argued for the early implementation of these changes to the Standing Orders. Agreement was reached between the parties in the House at the end of 1993 and I have sought, through correspondence and conversation, to make the Government introduce the changes earlier. By contrast, the Secretary of State has done his level best to hold them up. Only after endless delays and excuses about so-called non co-operation is he now grudgingly bringing the changes before the House.
People will remember the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). He said that democracy is about more than voting. That is very true when the Conservative party has dropped right out of the scale of voting in Scotland and has virtually no support among the population of Scotland.
The Government behave without circumspection but with complete arrogance, and that behaviour will consign

them to being almost permanently on the margin of Scottish politics. As the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said, this is a Government
in office but not in power."—[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 285.]
They have lost, decisively, comprehensively and perhaps permanently, the support of the Scottish people.
Like the old, near-senile rulers of the old eastern European regimes, the Government strut around the Scottish stage without backing, consent or popular authority. Just like those relics of the past, when they cannot win elections, they blame the electorate. Apparently the electors got it wrong. They have been confused, bemused or taken down blind alleys by other political parties. The Government never admit that they have got it wrong and that they should change.
Just like the Brezhnevs of the past, manipulating small families and huge families, the Scottish Tory family simply takes those who have lost elections and places them on the quangos that are increasingly running Scotland. Scarcely a quango, large and powerful or small, is complete without a failed Tory candidate and now, of course, there is no other version. Just like the eastern European relics, they will be consigned to the museum.
Let me be constructive as well as critical of the Government. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has rightly pointed out, we have missed out and the people, and especially the vulnerable children, of Scotland have missed out because no comprehensive legislation has been introduced in Scotland to mirror the Children Act 1989, which applies to England and Wales.
The Government's promised Children's Bill should have appeared last year, but it was pushed aside for local government reorganisation. Scotland is already five years behind England in its reform of laws for children. The Government, however, are apparently still arguing that there will be no time for the Bill even in the next Session. That is scandalous. No attempt has been made by Ministers of any variety to deny the stories about that which have appeared in the press. A Children's Bill that was properly drafted to ensure cross-party support could be referred to the new Scottish Grand Committee and to the new procedures that we will agree tonight. I therefore challenge the Secretary of State to choose the route of cross-party co-operation in the interests of Scotland's vulnerable children.
The Opposition offer our support for such a Bill. The Government may put Scotland's children in second place to the gerrymandering of Scottish local government, but the Labour party puts children first. That is why we make it clear tonight that we shall give our co-operation to such a Bill being considered in Scottish Grand Committee, thereby avoiding the pre-empting of precious parliamentary time.
There will be other opportunities to use those channels to raise issues that we have been unable to raise under the present procedures. We shall be able to consider the Rosyth naval base and the betrayal of its work force. They were given promises repeatedly but now, apparently, they are to be withdrawn, cavalierly and brazenly, by a Government who treat promises with absolutely no faith. The new procedures will also allow us, I hope, to interrogate, once again, Lord Fraser about the Fyfe-Peterken row. Perhaps we shall get closer to the truth than any Government statements up to now have allowed us to get. I notice that Lord Fraser does not even bother to attend Scottish


Question Time now to hear the answers to questions put about his Department. That will change, to the slight benefit of Scottish democracy.
The tide of history will see the cosmetic changes offered as purely tinkering at a system that needs radical change. They are, and will be seen as, a superficial and unconvincing—although perhaps in the short term welcome—attempt to hide the depth of the centralisation that is sapping our national strength. A new Government are coming, who, with a Scottish Parliament as the first stage to a decentralised United Kingdom, will usher in a new and revived spirit of a vibrant, growing and democratic United Kingdom.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Given the strict time limit on the debate, I shall be brief. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will keep me to the point.
I welcome the debate and the terms of the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is worth recalling briefly, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) did, the background to the debate on our standing orders.
In the days immediately preceding the general election of April 1992, in Scotland we were told almost daily by the media and by each of the Opposition parties that the Scottish Conservative party was facing electoral annihilation. We were told that we would be down to two Members of Parliament, if we were lucky, and that more than 50 per cent. of our fellow Scots wanted outright secession from the Union. We were told that, frankly, the days of the Union were numbered. We were also told that to be an unionist was to have a death wish and that what our opponents called and still call the status quo could not last. We read that by our perceived intransigence it was we unionists who were threatening the Union.
Without doubt there is some truth in the thinking that argued that rigid, dogmatic, almost doctrinaire adherence to the status quo was and, indeed, is dangerous. As the party of the Union, it falls uniquely to us to fight for and preserve the historic bond between our two countries. If we do not, no one else will. It is up to us to make the Union positive and relevant and to make it work. My right hon. Friend moved his motion in that spirit.
A valid and proper question that must be asked is whether to be a unionist today is to be a defender of the constitutional status quo and to say no—no to change, no to any change, no to every change. I remind the House of the fate of the last Member in this House who said, "No, no, no."
The Union of 1707 has changed and will change. To survive, it must change. That is what we are debating tonight. Unionism is not blind, unquestioning adherence to present constitutional arrangements.

Mr. Salmond: If I catch the hon. Gentleman's drift correctly, the former right hon. Member whom he mentioned said "Yes" to the Rosyth naval base. How does the hon. Gentleman feel about that?

Mr. Robertson: I shall stick to the issue in question. The hon. Gentleman may be able to fit that matter into his own speech.
By its very nature, the status quo must change. The Union that we have today is not that of 1707. How could it possibly be? It has constantly adapted to changing circumstances, moved with the times and been flexible. The partnership between Scotland and England is not stagnant but dynamic, and my right hon. Friend is asking the House to embrace that dynamism. Freeing the Scottish Grand Committee from the shackles of meeting only in Edinburgh and London, giving it new powers and enhancing its role is the next step in the Union's evolution.
To answer the question that I posed, Conservative Members are not frightened of change, but we differ from each of the Opposition parties—which, to be fair, also offer change—because to any change, however great or small, we always apply a fundamental, non-negotiable criterion: will it strengthen or weaken the Union? If it passes that test and truly enhances the Union, we shall be found right behind it, battling hard for it. But if it fails the test and weakens or threatens the Union, we shall fight it to the end with every conviction and every sinew of our being.
That is why we oppose the plans proposed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and all the Opposition parties and support my right hon. Friend. The Scottish National party wants to destroy the United Kingdom and consign it to history. At least that is honest. The Liberal Democrat and Labour parties offer a half-way house which is untenable in the long term and offers nothing but chaos, instability and misery in the short term.
It is hard to see how a directly elected tax-raising Assembly could ever pass the test of whether the Union would be strengthened. The one offered by the constitutional convention certainly does not: under it, Scotland would become the most highly taxed part of the kingdom, driving out jobs and investment. Political tensions would be great when dilemmas like the West Lothian question became real issues rather than mere academic debating points. The regional imbalances within Scotland would result in an Assembly dominated by central Scotland, with no sensitivity to the north and north-east. Policies would be tailored for the central belt and paid for by Grampian.
We oppose the unilateral devolution on offer, not because it comes either from the convention or our opponents, but because in the short term it threatens the Union and in the long term will destroy it completely.
As a Unionist party, we have never been frightened to question how and if the Union is working, and to look at its failings as well as its strengths. The changes envisaged by my right hon. Friend are fundamental, radical and visionary—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may scoff and sneer, but what do they have to fear in allowing the Grand Committee to meet in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Inverness or their own constituencies? Are they concerned that their constituents might see Scottish Members debating Scottish matters which affect them? Are they frightened that the Grand Committee will take on a new relevance, or that their constituents might demand their attendance and—horror of horrors—their participation?

Mr. Kynoch: The Scottish people should see the Opposition Benches now, with only six Labour Members present. Is that not representative of Labour Members' attitude to the future of Scotland and their interest in what goes on in this place?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend raises a valid point. As he said earlier, the last time the Grand Committee met in Edinburgh only half the Scottish parliamentary Labour party bothered to turn up. Do the Opposition parties oppose what we are doing tonight because they fear change themselves? Do they believe that we are about to deny them our greatest weapon?

Mr. George Robertson: I hate to interrupt such a polished speech, but the hon. Gentleman has clearly failed to spot the fact that we support these changes today. I know that that might cut out a large chunk of his speech, but he should change it if he does not want to look absolutely ludicrous tomorrow.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman may support what we are doing tonight, but has he heard his colleagues jeering in the background? Has he seen them shaking their heads at what he said or what my right hon. Friend said? If they are supportive, why is there only a one-line whip? Why are they not whipped in the House to vote for the measures?
Is it simply that Opposition Members know that we are right and agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor, when he wrote in The Herald on 3 May 1993:
I think we are making a great mistake if we just assume there is huge enthusiasm for home rule in Scotland.
In conclusion, Scotland's place is as a full and equal partner in the United Kingdom. Only the Conservative party is committed to that. The Scottish people have shown time and again that they do not want to see the saltire ripped from the Union flag. The Union has endured because it can change and it will endure. It is dynamic and has changed, and it will change again. These reforms are an important staging post in its history. In time, if not tonight, they will be seen as just as important as previous reforms, such as the creation of the Scottish Office and the position of the Secretary of State, and the setting up of the Select Committee—as important as the creation of the Grand Committee itself. As a unionist, I have no hesitation in supporting the reforms and commending them to the House.

Mr. James Wallace: We have just listened to what I suspect is the authentic voice of Tory unionism. If what we are being asked to support this evening is a measure of dynamism and vision, heaven help Scotland. I accept that they are pragmatic measures and measures which we, indeed, will support, but they fall far short of anything that will address the malaise within the Union arrangements.
When I heard the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) say that, if anything threatened the Union, he would use every sinew—or words to that effect—to defend the Union at all costs, I am sure that those are the sort of words that were spoken from the Tory Benches in 1912 and 1914 when Liberal Governments tried to introduce measures for the government of Ireland. Of course, it was that type of attitude that led to the one event that we have had in this century where the Union broke up. The Conservatives achieved the break-up of the Union by their unwillingness to endorse and embrace some genuinely and visionary measures which would sort out the government of this country.
When people talk about anomalies that might arise, I do not recall, during the years before Stormont was abolished, that many Tory Members objected to the fact that they had the support of Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament, albeit that matters affecting the domestic affairs of Ulster were dealt with at Stormont and Ulster Members were still free to debate, come to this House and vote on all other measures affecting other parts of the United Kingdom. That was an anomaly. It is an anomaly which would be cured by federalism. However, it is clearly an anomaly which Tory Members were prepared to accept as long as it suited their own book.
Both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) have referred to the taking-stock exercise which, after a long gestation period, produced a mouse. When one looks at what has happened in the interim, even if the announcement of taking stock was a disappointment, the subsequent events have been something of a disappointment, too. We are told, and we now know, that there are facilities for people to make local telephone calls to ask the Scottish Office questions. What is the point of asking questions if one gets answers which reflect the minority view within Scotland?
We also heard from the Secretary of State—indeed, he paraded it as one of the great achievements—that he has responsibility for training in Scotland. As I recall, paragraph 7.5 of the document "Taking Stock" says that training will be done within the framework of overall strategic priorities, initiatives and policies developed by the Secretary of State for Employment in consultation with colleagues and collectively agreed.
As one who is always willing to give credit where credit is due, I acknowledge that on 7 February this year the Secretary of State made an important announcement that he heralded as a further step in developing the policies set out in the White Paper "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good". On that day, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), he proudly announced that, with the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, formal responsibility for the administration of treasure trove in Scotland had been transferred from the Treasury to the Scottish Office.
The body politic in Scotland is still quaking after the dynamic, visionary and radical decision made that day. If they are still looking for the treasure, it is not to be found in the White Paper—

Mr. Kynoch: If the people of Scotland followed the hon. Gentleman's recommendation of a Scottish Parliament, with all the implications that that might have for increased taxation, would they regard being probably the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom as treasure?

Mr. Wallace: I have never accepted the proposition that a Parliament would necessarily lead to higher rates of tax. Taxation powers are important if any legislative body is to have some means of fiscal discipline—[Interruption.] As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) reminds me, that was precisely Lord Home's argument before the 1979 referendum.
The power to raise taxation also involves the power to lower it. If Scotland wanted to gain some competitive advantage, it might reduce taxes—a possibility that Tory Members refuse to countenance because it undermines their other arguments.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Gallie: rose—

Mr. Wallace: No. I am trying to make some progress.
We were told in the document that the Government's objective was to find ways of handling Commons business relating to Scotland, including legislation
which maximises the involvement of Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies and increases the responsiveness of the system to Scottish considerations.
In this Session, there have been two important measures affecting the criminal law of Scotland and police powers. They were essentially English Bills to which Scottish provisions had been tagged on. On the Committees that scrutinised those Bills, only two Scottish Members were able to serve—yet one of them concerned an important issue for Scotland about which we have all received many letters: aggravated trespass. When the Scottish aspects of that issue were debated, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) rose, kept his head down, and for three minutes read out a truncated version of his brief. Then he sat down. So much for sensitivity to Scottish considerations.
Such Scottish legislation as there is we find often tagged on to whatever will go for England and Wales. A Scottish Parliament would not have defaulted on introducing measures to safeguard and to implement many of the recommendations and reports that have emerged on the welfare of children in Scotland. That was a serious omission from this year's legislative programme. We hope that reports that there will be no such legislation next year either are wrong.
If the Government introduce a Children Bill for Scotland in the next Session, it will receive the support of both sides of the House. We shall of course want to look at the details; a Special Standing Committee of the type to which the Secretary of State referred would offer an ideal mechanism for scrutiny of the legal niceties involved in the welfare of children. I greatly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take encouragement from this debate to introduce such a Bill soon.
Although we welcome the new Standing Orders, I note that there will be no real votes in the Grand Committee. No matter what we debate, or how passionately we debate it, we will ultimately only be debating whether to adjourn or whether to report to the House that we have considered an issue. I cannot wait for the touring circus to turn up in the old Parliament hall in St. Andrew's, where we will spend two and a half hours passionately debating the economy of Scotland, only at the end to vote on whether to adjourn. If that is the kind of picture that Scottish people will see on location about how Scotland is governed, they will not draw the conclusions that Conservative Members expect people to draw.
I welcome the fact that there will be additional time for questions. It is frustrating to us all that Scottish Question Time occurs only once in every four parliamentary weeks. On a whole range of subjects our English colleagues have an opportunity to question individual Ministers, but we have to pick and choose between all those subjects on one occasion. We will have an opportunity to question the Minister of State in another place and the Law Officers. The last time on which there was a separate period to put oral questions to the Law Officers was in 1987. Since then, there has been the Lockerbie air disaster and Piper Alpha and other important issues which intimately involved the

actions of Law Officers. But we have not had a proper opportunity here to ask questions on those matters, and this proposal is particularly welcome.
I warmed to the Secretary of State's suggestion that we might get a calendar for timetabling Scottish Grand Committee meetings. We shall certainly do our best to co-operate to try to achieve that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has said, we are not all sitting with empty diaries to slot in meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee at four days' notice.
The distribution of debates is six for the Government, four for the principal Opposition and one each for the other Scottish Opposition parties. That is not exactly proportional representation, but it is probably better than the current arrangement and it is at least a start.

Sir Russell Johnston: Perhaps I may intervene to allow my hon. Friend to replenish his supply of water. He mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). Does he recall that in, I think, 1965, shortly after he was elected, my rt hon. Friend wrote a pamphlet for the Scottish Liberal party, as it was then, entitled "Out of Control"? That pamphlet contained practically all the Government's proposals.

Mr. Wallace: I do not have a contemporaneous recollection of that: I was only 11 at the time. However, I subsequently read the pamphlet, which is very good. I am sure that the Secretary of State must have had it very much in mind when he presented his proposals. In 1912 Mr. Asquith said that the centre was congested and that it was time to start divesting some of the congestion.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) remembers that.

Mr. Wallace: I do not accuse my hon. Friend of remembering Mr. Asquith. I recall a pamphlet written by the present Secretary of State in the late 1970s which seemed to favour the concept of some sort of devolution. The Secretary of State shakes his head. Perhaps we can look in the files to see whether we can find it. It obviously did not make the same impact upon me as the one written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. However, I remember that the Secretary of State for Defence made impassioned speeches in the House in favour of Scottish devolution in the 1970s. He may still hold that view but feels that he cannot say so.
Whether we can have ad hoc statements or whether they can be made only on days when there is a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee is not entirely clear. For example, statements on student grants or on other matters which affect the whole of the United Kingdom are invariably made by English Ministers and Scottish Members do not have an opportunity to ask detailed Scottish questions. It is not clear whether statements on Scottish matters could be made at relatively short notice in the Scottish Grand Committee.
The doubt is that the proposed legislation amounts to anything like that which is necessary to address the needs of the Scottish people. Our party is unequivocally a party of home rule because we believe that that offers the Scottish people the opportunity to elect those who will determine Scotland's political priorities for its domestic


affairs while leaving matters such as defence, foreign affairs and macro-economic policy to what we see as the federal Parliament. That is the only way in which the Union can be preserved. Many aspects of the Union are worth preserving, but the one way to destroy it is to make only small adjustments to it or none at all.
As I said, Mr. Asquith thought that the centre was congested in 1912. It is even more congested now, and probably facing gridlock. It would be for the better government of Scotland to divest this place of many of its responsibilities. The measure goes a short way towards improving the government of Scotland, and that is why we support it. But people are kidding themselves if they think that it addresses the central question.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I shall be brief, which I am sure all hon. Members will be glad to hear.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on presenting the new Standing Orders and I fully identify with them. I welcome the support generally expressed by Opposition Members, although was disappointed with the negative approach of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). He did not really deal with the issues, but instead began a tirade about home rule and a Scottish Parliament. He rehearsed the argument that 75 per cent. of Scottish electors voted for those who wanted major constitutional change. He ignored the fact that they actually voted for the retention of the Union. That is an important point.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government lost the last election in Scotland. In fact, they won it in the Union and on the basis—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton should not snigger. He represents a party of the Union, so he should respect the wishes of all the citizens of the Union. The Conservative party stood adamantly against the establishment of a separate Scottish Parliament. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman likes it, the fact is that the Conservative party won the argument throughout the United Kingdom. There will not be a separate Scottish Parliament under a Conservative Government.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend's argument is strengthened by the fact that, throughout the last general election campaign, Kent was honoured by a whole series of Scottish Members of Parliament preaching the Labour cause. Any suggestion that they were viewed as either visitors or passengers would have been ridiculous.

Mr. Gallie: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, if senior members of the Labour party with Scottish seats had not gone to Kent to speak on behalf of the Labour party, there would have been few other senior members available to do so because the party depends so heavily on the Scottish input.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to taxation under a Scottish Parliament. He suggested that it would cut taxes in Scotland. That could be achieved in one of two ways—either Scots would pay less in national taxation or a Scottish Parliament would draw in cash from Scottish local authorities and therefore reduce their cash base—

Mr. Henry McLeish: Rubbish.

Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman want to defend the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland? Can he suggest another way that a Scottish Parliament could cut taxes in Scotland? If so, perhaps he would get to his feet and tell us.

Mr. Kynoch: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gallie: No; I want to hear from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish).

Mr. McLeish: Where has the hon. Gentleman found a reference to funds for a Scottish Parliament coming from local authorities?

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that a Scottish Parliament would reduce taxes for the Scottish people. I am suggesting two means of achieving that. I am not suggesting that it is written anywhere else.

Mr. Wallace: How many election speeches has the hon. Gentleman made arguing that lower taxation could increase accrued revenue and that that could be better for the economy?

Mr. Gallie: Many, and I firmly believe that. I argued the case in national terms, but the hon. Gentleman is suggesting some sort of two-tier national taxation system in Scotland, which is totally irrational. The hon. Gentleman's comments earlier this evening do not hold water.

Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has finally admitted tonight that the Liberal Democrats are firmly for home rule? The hon. Gentleman was very cagey about the fact that that would mean increased taxation in Scotland. Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, at the last general election, the message was given loud and clear to the Liberal Democrats that my part of the world would not tolerate being governed by the central belt or a higher rate of taxation with Liberal Democrat or Labour policies in Scotland?

Mr. Gallie: I do not know what the Liberal Democrats were saying in Kincardine and Deeside, but almost certainly something different was said in Ayr. That is the nature of the Liberal Democrat party.
I envisage that the new Scottish Grand Committee will reflect the on-going activities of Parliament at Westminster. It will do so with the introduction of Question Time, which I much welcome. Also, my hon. Friend the Minister for State will be able to participate in the Scottish Grand Committee in future, which is most important. I welcome also, together with Opposition Members, the participation of the Law Officers.
I welcome the introduction of short debates and the time limit of five minutes on introductory speeches, including by Ministers, and of three minutes on subsequent speeches, which will produce sharp and interesting debates. I welcome also the provision for mobility. However, I recall the poor attendance at Scottish Grand Committees in the past in Edinburgh—particularly at the last meeting on local government, which was attended by only a few Opposition Members. That meeting was not on a Tuesday or Thursday but on a Monday, when Scottish Members traditionally stay in Scotland. If the Committee meets on Tuesdays or


Thursdays in different towns in Scotland, it will create many difficulties for hon. Members who want to participate in debates on wider issues.
The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to local government changes. I bear in mind the criticisms levelled against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers—

Mr. McLeish: Over raising tax levels?

Mr. Gallie: We have no intention of doing that. Our aim is to reduce taxes, not increase them—but that is another matter.
Opposition Members have criticised the speed at which local government reform will be introduced in Scotland. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I hear positive acknowledgement of that. I must express puzzlement, therefore, at the words of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who told the United Kingdom that if a Labour Government are ever elected, they will introduce a Parliament in Scotland in the first 12 months. Given the criticism from Labour Members, that is most surprising.

Mr. McLeish: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an important difference? Unlike the local government reorganisation Bill—on which there is no consensus, and which is half-baked and not wanted—a Scottish Parliament will be supported by the overwhelming majority of Scots, and we will implement it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Gallie: I do not accept that the overwhelming majority endorse such a move.
The hon. Gentleman, however, has provided me with a means of winding up my speech. He referred to the Government's intention in regard to local government reforms, which was a Conservative party manifesto pledge. We promised single-tier authorities; we are about to deliver them. At the same time, many Conservative Members promised that, if elected, they would move towards the re-establishment of a Scottish Select Committee. That has happened, and I believe that it has provided many valuable means of analysing business in Scotland recently. Above all, Conservative Members promised a review of the Scottish Grand Committee and its involvement. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for living up to those manifesto pledges, and for coming clean with these excellent proposals.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I address some factual questions to the Leader of the House? New Standing Order D, on page 4438 of the Order Paper, states:
The chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee may permit a Scottish Office Minister or a Scottish law officer, whether or not a member of the committee, to make a statement".
Let us suppose that an hon. Member wanted a debate on Lockerbie. What would be the procedure? Would that hon. Member have to persuade whoever was the Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee, and are we talking about the alternative Chairman who now exists?
Paragraph (4) of new Standing Order D states:
A minister or law officer making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a member of the committee, may not do so from the body of the committee".
What exactly does that mean, and to what extent would the

Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General be responsible? In what form could written questions then be put to him, as the responsible Minister?
New Standing Order H(1)(d), on page 4440 of the Order Paper, states that it will be possible for the Scottish Grand Committee
to hold short debates under Standing Order C…on certain of the days so specified".
How would those debates be chosen? If a Government did not want a debate on, for example, Lockerbie, would it not be easy to crowd out a request for one? What would be the rights of Back Benchers—in particular, those whose requests might not be supported by those on the Opposition Front Bench? Is there any provision to allow debates that have been requested but may not be wanted by those on either Front Bench? Both may take the view—quite legitimately—that there are other more important subjects to be debated. I am concerned about requests from Opposition Back Benchers and, indeed, from minority parties with minority opinions. What chance would those of us with minority opinions on, say, Lockerbie have of securing a debate?
It is all very well to say, refer to Scottish Ministers and the Lord Advocate. In what circumstances could a Committee Chairman ask for the presence of a Minister in a United Kingdom Department? Let us again take the example of Lockerbie. I questioned the Prime Minister about the lead Department involved. The answer was that in certain circumstances it was the Crown Office, but that the Foreign Office dealt with other aspects of the Lockerbie crime—for such it was. Can the Scottish Grand Committee ask for a Foreign Office Minister to deal with Lockerbie? I had better not confine myself simply to Lockerbie. What about Rosyth? It might be very important to have a Defence or a Trade and Industry Minister deal with that.
To what extent can the Scottish Grand Committee ask, in reasonable circumstances—as judged by the Chairman—for Ministers from Departments other than the Crown Office or the Scottish Office?

Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall make no comment on the interesting questions raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), except to say that I have noticed from some of his recent interventions that he is growing increasingly sceptical of some of the institutions and procedures of the Union, which he once so strongly defended.
The speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) interested me, but more for the extravagant use of hand gestures throughout his discourse. The Liberal Democrats seem to regard such gestures with great suspicion, as they are increasingly of the view that they may be directed at them.
I was especially interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who said two things that are worth reflecting on. First, he said that the attendance of Conservative Members was very good. It is indeed quite spectacular. I notice seven out of the 11 Scottish Tories on the Conservative Benches. I put that down to the continuing contest to see who will inherit the poisoned chalice from the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he shakes off the mortal coil of being Secretary of State in the next week or so. After reading the Sunday


Post poll of his constituency, I advise him to devote as much time to constituency affairs as possible during the next couple of years.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South reminded us of his memorable address to this House after the regional elections, in which he assured us that, despite Conservatives falling like ninepins in the rest of Scotland, the Conservative vote was holding very firm in his constituency. I spent some time in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on European election day. I apologise for not giving him notice of that. I could not detect any great upsurge of interest in the Conservative party at the polling stations, despite the doubtless continuing inspirational leadership that he is giving the party in that area.
It is very difficult for the Conservative party to gainsay the assertion that the collapse in its fortunes in Scotland during the 18 months since the "taking stock" was first announced—what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Ms Robertson) described as the halcyon days—has been anything other than dramatic.
I remind the Secretary of State of what he said at the time, in May 1993:
We have, to use the vernacular, taken stock—and it's the opposition who are in the soup.
I do not know if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is in the soup in Scotland, but the Conservative party certainly seems to be boiling in oil, given the collapse in support from the 26 per cent. that it obtained in the general election to 12 per cent. in the regional elections, 14 per cent. in the European election—the Conservatives officially quoted that as a great improvement in its fortunes—and to the 9 per cent. that was cited for Conservative party fortunes in the Gallup poll Scottish sample published last Friday.
Political parties—my own included—have had low points in their fortunes at various times and have been as low as 9 per cent. In the late 1980s, the Social and Liberal Democrats reached such a low figure—

Mr. Wallace: Lower than that.

Mr. Salmond: I am informed that it was lower. I cannot, however, think of any party in government which has sunk so low in the estimation of the people on whose behalf it is governing. Even the Conservatives in Canada, en route to their near total wipeout in the Canadian elections, still obtained between 17 per cent. and 18 per cent. of the vote. It is unprecedented for a party in Government, and claiming a mandate, to be at 9 per cent. in the latest poll of the party affiliations of the Scottish people.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Hamilton in his reflections on the support for constitutional options. I heard what he said about the remaining amount of support for devolution in the ranks of the Scottish National party. I took the trouble to dig out the opinion poll to which I was referring, in The Scotsman on Wednesday 8 June. As far as I know, it is the most recent sounding of the feeling of the people of Scotland about the various constitutional options. I remember it well. I recollected, and can now confirm, that the front page was headed "Poll boost for independence". According to the sample, no fewer than 74 per cent. of SNP voters, 31 per cent. of Liberal Democrat voters, 49 per cent. of Labour voters and even 22 per cent. of Conservative voters agreed with the proposition that Scotland would be better off as an independent country

within a European context than as part of Britain. Overall, 48 per cent. of all voters agreed with the notion while 15 per cent. disagreed.
On the straight constitutional question—given the three options of independence in Europe, a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom and the status quo—the hon. Member for Hamilton was right to note that support for independence among SNP voters was by no means unanimous. It had the support of 55 per cent. of SNP voters but, at the same time, only 51 per cent. of Labour voters agreed with Labour's policy of devolution and only 49 per cent. of Conservatives voters, in an admittedly small sample, agreed with the Conservative policy of maintaining the status quo. I have the figures here if the hon. Member for Hamilton would like to see them. According to this sample, support for independence in Europe was greater even than the exceptionally high levels of support currently recorded for the SNP.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is good at citing figures and quoting newspaper articles, but what does he have to say about his party's old slogan "Scotland Free in '93"?

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman knows that politics is a continuing process. I can promise him that at the next election I shall not campaign with the slogan, "We'll be in heaven in 1997." Nevertheless, I am extremely satisfied with the 33 per cent. level of support recorded by the SNP in the European elections last month. I should have been extremely disappointed if we had recorded the ridiculously low level of 14 per cent. recorded by the hon. Gentleman's party. Does the hon. Member for Hamilton wish to intervene?

Mr. George Robertson: I certainly do, but I am unsure whether we are providing illumination by bandying around the results of opinion polls. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to the System 3 poll, which asked a precise question about the preferred constitutional arrangements. It found that 48 per cent. of SNP supporters favoured a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom.
However, I also draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention what Mr. Jim Sillars is reported as saying in yesterday's edition of Scotland on Sunday:
I am not sure what the present SNP objective is. People will say: 'Of course it's independence,' but is it? Because if it's independence then you never miss an opportunity of using that word. So when a party uses the language of the Labour party—like 'strong Scottish parliament'—then I've got a question as to whether the objective is independence.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is using our vocabulary because he knows that the bulk of those who might be inclined to support the SNP support a strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom within Europe.

Mr. Salmond: Perhaps Mr. Sillars had the misfortune to believe Labour party press statements about the Monklands by-election. I took the trouble to bring along the SNP by-election address because I had heard the hon. Member for Hamilton make a similar point before. I shall read it to him. Its fairly large headline is
The Scotland I want to see".
Our candidate in Monklands argued:
I want Scotland to be equal with the other nations of Europe. To have our own Parliament which will give a Scottish solution to Scottish problems. With Independence, Scotland will be free to


choose her own government, rather than having a Tory government from Westminster foisted upon us. Then we will be able to vote in elections for any party of our choice.
The address goes on to deal with benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds—a matter which the hon. Gentleman debated with us last Thursday—and pensions and argues why the concept of independence for Scotland should be favoured by the Scottish people. I should think that there are very few people in Scotland who do not now realise that the SNP stands for full national independence within a European context.
I was, however, interested in the Sunday newspapers and especially in the remarks of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Mr. Hogg) who openly questioned the Labour party's commitment given by all three leadership candidates to enact devolution legislation in the first year of a Labour Government. I noticed that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) used the words "at the earliest possible opportunity" a few moments ago. I do not know whether he is—mediating—

Mr. McLeish: rose—

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a few more points before allowing him to intervene. I heard him clearly say "at the earliest possible opportunity"—we can check the record.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is mediating between the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and the leadership candidates of the Labour party. All I will say is that I found the matter fascinating, not so much for what the hon. Member Cumbernauld and Kilsyth said, although that was interesting in itself, but for the fact that he identified within the Labour party what he called "devolution sceptics"—opponents of devolution—who would cause enormous difficulties to the progress of a devolution Bill, as he said in a closely argued article. Is the hon. Member for Fife, Central aware who those people in the parliamentary Labour party are? Is he prepared to name them this evening?

Mr. McLeish: Let me make it quite clear from the Labour Benches that we will legislate for a Scottish Parliament in the first year of a Labour Government. We shall succeed in that first year. Although everyone in the party is entitled to his or her opinions, we can give that cast-iron guarantee. More important, let me ask whether the Scottish National party will support Labour in its attempts to establish a Scottish Parliament in the first year of a Labour Government.

Mr. George Robertson: If the Scottish National party is here.

Mr. McLeish: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) says, if the Scottish National party is here.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman should refer back to the Usher hall debate during the last election campaign, during which I was asked exactly the same question. I made it quite clear that, just as we shall support these minor changes tonight, the Scottish National party always operates in the interests of the Scottish people. The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely clear that we shall go into an election campaigning for independence for Scotland within Europe. That is the proposition that we shall put before the

Scottish people. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I shall be able to be reasonably clear that all the members of my party campaigning in that election will believe in our commitment.
Clearly, I do not know whether there will be a special manifesto in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth at the next election or whether the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, that experienced member of the Labour party in Scotland—who is more experienced than the hon. Member for Fife, Central—will be given a special codicil to exempt him from the general policy. Alternatively, will disciplinary action be taken against the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth for not agreeing with this central tenet of Labour party policy?
I believe that the argument tonight is about the "taking stock" reforms and about whether they can live up to the claim that was made by the Conservative party 18 months ago that the whole exercise was one involving listening to the Scottish people. More than any other single factor, the reason for the plummeting of the Conservative party's political fortunes in Scotland over that period has been the issue of Scottish water—and, in particular, the dramatic illustration in the Strathclyde water ballot of the fact that, far from there being an exercise involving listening to the views of the Scottish people, any excuse and any pretext would be regarded as sufficient opportunity to disregard the views that were being expressed.
I remind the House that in a 71.5 per cent. poll, 1,194,667 people rejected the Government's plans to take water out of local authority control. A mere 33,956—2.8 per cent.—actually supported them. Despite all that, and despite that dramatic demonstration of will by the Scottish people in the Strathclyde region, the Government, far from living up to their promise to listen to the Scottish population, were apparently determined to cast those views aside.
The real test of the proposals was alluded to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland when he made the distinction between being able to question, debate, ask and listen, and being able to decide. There is absolutely nothing in the procedures that gives the people of Scotland any opportunity to extend the decision-making ability of Scottish representatives, even over the simplest matters of Scottish life—even over areas on which there might be a consensus in Scotland.
I looked through the records of the House and it was significant that I could not find a single piece of Scottish legislation whose progress the Government were willing to entrust to Scottish political representatives. Indeed, the only area in which I could find that there was a majority of Scottish Members—I think mistakenly—was the vote on 1 February when the hon. Member for Hamilton, in some sort of emotional spasm, decided to go into the Lobby with the Conservative party to back the powers of the House and the right of five Conservatives from English constituencies to dictate the progress of Scottish local government and the removal of water from local authorities. On no other issue can I find any consensus among even the unionist Scottish parties. Therein lies the reason why there is no decision-making power within the proposals which is to be entrusted to the Scottish Grand Committee, even in its reformed context.

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman uses the technique of constantly reiterating something which is simply not true. The Labour party voted that night with the


other Opposition parties, with the exception of the Scottish National party, to give the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee the power to stop juvenile displays by the Scottish National party, in its attempts to block progress in that Committee. It had nothing whatever to do with the rights of five English Members of Parliament to be on that Committee. The SNP, as ever, decided that it would indulge in a publicity gimmick. Labour Members were not involved in that. We wanted to ensure that that Committee proceeded without a guillotine. The SNP did not. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would be accurate in what he tells the House and the outside world.

Mr. Salmond: Yet again, I have touched a raw nerve with the hon. Gentleman. That vote was significant for two reasons. I cannot remember any other motion in the House of Commons proposed by the Leader of the House the only Front-Bench speech in whose favour was made by the hon. Member for Hamilton. Secondly, the most memorable of the interchanges in that debate was when the hon. Member for Hamilton looked across at the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman)—keen water privatiser that that hon. Gentleman is—and informed him, against the overwhelming view in Scotland, that that hon. Gentleman, representing Stroud, with his privatisation views on Scottish water, had "a perfect right" to be on that Scottish Committee.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make some progress.
The reason why there are no decision-making powers for the Scottish Grand Committee in the proposals is quite simple. There is no area of policy—I refer even to areas which should be non-party political—on which the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to trust the elected representatives of the people of Scotland with effective decision-making powers. It is rather like the events of the past week—an issue of show rather than substance. People in Scotland will long remember that, while—perhaps under the influence of the taking-stock proposals—there was a royal pageant in the streets of Edinburgh, in London the decision was effectively being made to close the Rosyth naval base. What better illustration could there be of the difference between the form and the show of the decision making? There was a sop to the Scottish people while, at the same time, here in London, real decisions and power were being exercised over the Scottish people.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that he and his colleagues would look at the proposals in the context of what was good for the Union. My hon. Friends and I will look at them, and any other proposals concerning Scottish business which may come before us, in the context of what is good for Scotland. Our judgment is that such minor, tinkering incremental proposals for the Scottish Grand Committee, although containing nothing of substance, will none the less afford a further opportunity for a questioning process about the wrongs being done to the Scottish people by the Government who, clearly, have no mandate in Scotland. On that basis, we are content to let them go through the House, but with the clear statement that the Scottish National party's campaign is for national self determination and national self respect for the people of Scotland.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall be brief as other hon. Members wish to speak and time is rushing by.
Before I ask my questions of the Minister, I should say that, no matter how Conservative Members dismiss the idea of growing dissatisfaction with the Government in Scotland, it is palpable. It is certainly the case in my constituency, where many people are deeply dissatisfied with the way in which their lives are governed from what they see as a Westminster Parliament. That cannot be gainsaid. The Conservative party is deeply unpopular in my constituency. There is one Conservative councillor in the whole of Inverclyde district council.
In that regard, I well remember the sensible words offered by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who once said in this place that we benefit enormously in Scotland from the fact that the secessionist movement in our country is so peaceful and that the dissatisfaction to which I have just referred is vented in peaceable, democratic ways. The hon. Gentleman was right. We are fortunate in that regard, and long may we be so. I think that I echo the hon. Gentleman's words of four or five years ago.
At the same time, there is widespread alienation. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) says that it is right that people should question the way in which Scotland is governed and should question the union between England, Wales and Scotland. It is my experience in the part of Scotland that I represent that more and more people are voicing their dissatisfaction with the way in which Scotland is governed. The proposals before us do not go anywhere near meeting the widespread alienation that is to be found.
I take up the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about section D(4) on column 4438 of the Order Paper, which provides that a statement can be made by a Law Officer but not
from the body of the committee".
Does the Secretary of State envisage such a statement being analogous to one made by a Minister to a Select Committee, after which the Minister will be cross-examined? Would the procedure be analogous to that of a Minister making a statement to a European Standing Committee? In those instances the modus operandi is that the Minister makes a statement on which he is cross-examined for a specific period.
It is an important matter because in this context we have not had a Law Officer in the House since 1987. Since then, however, we have had the report of Lord Cullen of Ashbourne on the Piper Alpha disaster. We have also had Lord Clyde's report on the terrible affair on Orkney. In both instances it would have been useful to be able to cross-examine a Law Officer in this place.
Section E is headed "Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)". It states that a Bill can be committed
to a Scottish Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee".
Now that the Leader of the House has returned to the Chamber, perhaps he will tell me the position of a Law Officer when a Bill is sent to the Scottish Grand Committee or to a Special Standing Committee, which I think can hear evidence on four occasions before reporting to the House. Presumably a Law Officer could not be part of the proceedings of the Standing Committee, but would he be


able to give evidence to a Special Standing Committee? That is important in the context of a law reform (miscellaneous provisions) (Scotland) Bill. When such a Bill comes before a Scottish Standing Committee, or as is envisaged a Special Standing Committee, members of that Committee should have the right to cross-examine a Law Officer.
Section F deals with statutory instruments. What power does the Scottish Grand Committee have to reject an instrument that has been referred to it? If we pray against it, do those praying against it have to specify that it should go before the Scottish Grand Committee?
I promised to be brief, so I will conclude. With regard to what has been described as a travelling circus, who will determine where such meetings will take place other than in Edinburgh and London? Will it be the usual channels or is it to be pre-ordained by Scottish Office Ministers?
I submit that the changes to the Standing Orders are slight. There are some advantages, particularly the right to question Law Officers. I make a plea for something that we desperately need in Scotland—an Act identical, or superior, to the Children Act 1989 which inevitably contains some imperfections. We should demand such an Act, the Second Reading of which should be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It is well known that the Government are in deep trouble and profoundly unpopular. They are trying to find ways of ingratiating themselves with people all over the country. There is something deeply unconvincing about the present Secretary of State for Employment suddenly discovering a concern about mass unemployment. It is equally unconvincing for the Secretary of State for Scotland suddenly to discover a concern about the accountability of the Government in Scotland.
The trouble is that the amendments to the Standing Orders come from the same stable as the poll tax, the local government legislation and the water quango legislation. There is nothing in the amendments to the Standing Orders to prevent a Government in future from being just as cavalier in their approach to legislation and administration in Scotland. I fear that the changes are little more than window dressing.
The amendments to the Standing Orders may be useful, but they are no substitute for democratic home rule for Scotland. Frankly, they will be short-lived. The Scottish Grand Committee will not operate under the provisions of these Standing Orders for long, because we shall have a Parliament in Scotland to scrutinise the government of Scotland, legislate for the people of Scotland and manage Scotland's budget in future within the United Kingdom.
The changes are far too little, far too late. Since 1979, we have had four general elections and a referendum in which people have made it abundantly clear that they want control of the government of Scotland to be placed in the hands of an elected parliament in Scotland. But what has happened? We have had the poll tax and all the rest over the past 16 years.
The amendments to the Standing Orders started life in the document, "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good." I am afraid that the Government have poisoned that

partnership economically and politically to the extent that they have driven their own right-wing supporters to turn in droves to another right-wing nationalist party. The same people who voted enthusiastically for Baroness Thatcher over all those years are now voting for the Scottish National party; and, in a sense, who can blame them? Anyone who wants to keep the United Kingdom together and establish good government in Scotland must follow the line of devolution and home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: No, there is no time. The hon. Gentleman has had quite enough time already. However, as the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to him again, I remind him that he is sitting between two hon. Members—the hon. Members for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—whom I vividly remember going into the Lobby to vote to bring down the Labour Government and put Mrs. Thatcher in power. They made it impossible for us to have a Scottish Parliament in 1979. But for them, we could have had one by now.
The amendments to the Standing Orders include the interesting idea of a Scottish Question Time in the Scottish Grand Committee. No doubt the changes offer an intriguing chance to various English Tories to avoid the need to be present in the House to vote on Scottish business in the future. The crucial point, which the Secretary of State tried to brush aside when I intervened in his speech, is that we cannot vote on controversial legislation as it affects Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman tried to shrug off the importance of the vote in our democratic system, but it is crucial.
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr.Rowe) asked why more Labour Members were not present at sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh.

Mr. Raymond S.Robertson: Answer.

Mr. Home Robertson: I will explain that to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). Why should the members of the majority on the Scottish Grand Committee go along to its sittings simply to act as an audience to listen to idiotic speeches from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) or whoever when we shall not even be able to vote on a substantive motion at the end of the debate? Frankly, it is a waste of public money to ask people to attend debates of that nature. It does not achieve anything.
What we want is accountable government in Scotland. If we are to achieve that, effective votes must be cast by the democratic representatives of the people of Scotland on legislation and administration in Scotland. In the past 16 years, Scottish votes have been ignored with impunity and with malice by Scottish Office Ministers. Scotland must have its own Parliament. The amendments to the Standing Orders may be a small step in the right direction, but they are no substitute for home rule in Scotland within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Henry McLeish: At this point I am supposed to say that the debate has been interesting, but it would be difficult to suggest that some of the contributions have risen to the dizzy heights that we normally describe.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Like the speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is still talking from a sedentary position; it is simply astonishing to think that he can still say in the House that the Conservatives and the Unionists are still doing well in Scotland. Does he not realise that the people of Scotland do not believe the Government? They do not trust, nor have any confidence in, the Government and, increasingly, they do not even vote for them. The Monklands by-election was a graphic illustration that proved to the Conservatives that they simply do not matter.

Mr. Robertson: A majority reduced to 1,600.

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman continues to mouth, so I must remind him that he had a spectacular role—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The House knows my views about seated interventions. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr.Robertson) seeks to catch my eye on another occasion, I might be slightly short-sighted.

Mr. McLeish: I would not presume to make a comment after that judgment. Suffice it to say that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South had a simply spectacular role in that by-election as the minder to end all minders. After that recollection, he sits in his place in humility.
It is simply remarkable that, at a time when we are discussing the taking stock initiatives, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), speaking on behalf of the Scottish National party, wanted to talk about Rosyth. His party has done nothing in Scotland to fight for the retention of either the dockyard or the naval base. It is simply hypocritical for him to think that hon. Members on either side of the House can take any instructions from him on that issue.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No, I will not. We will not allow the nationalists to shed any crocodile tears in the House about one of the most important institutions—

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No, I will not.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, in the course of the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), to ask, through you, where that hon. Member was two weeks ago, when I was lobbying on behalf of Rosyth outside the Scottish Office with some of his colleagues?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a proper point of order.

Mr. McLeish: I believe that my comments about the nationalists' role in the Rosyth campaign represent the reality and most hon. Members would nod in agreement.
The interesting point about the debate is that it has revolved around two important issues. First, the Government have presented a minimalist set of proposals, aimed at improving not the government of Scotland in Scotland but the government of Scotland at Westminster. Secondly, the Opposition parties passionately believe that

one cannot do anything significant about the governance of Scotland until one introduces a Scottish Parliament, sitting in Scotland, dealing with essentially Scottish business.
In their document published last year, the Government reminded us that we could celebrate the 300th anniversary of the union of the Parliaments in 2007—a mere 13 years away—and that the first Secretary for Scotland was established in 1895, so we could look forward to the 100th anniversary of that occasion in 1995. The point is that the Government are simply betraying those interested in both those changes because their electoral support has plummeted to new political depths. Why will not a party that has been annihilated in regional and European elections and a recent by-election take the governance of Scotland seriously enough to introduce substantial change?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way.
The Scottish people are simply sick and tired of a Government who provide tokenism at Westminster but no significant change in Scotland. The Labour party believes that, when the gap between the Government and the governed becomes so large, it is a cause for widespread concern. It is a matter not just of processing government in this House but of what is discussed and why it is discussed. Substantial issues that have dominated Scottish politics recently include water. In any measure of public opinion, the Government's proposals on water are simply not wanted. It would not matter if a Grand Committee were held every week in this House or if the Government set up extraordinary procedures to quiz Ministers. Scots simply do not want some of the public policy changes which the Government propose.
When the Leader of the House winds up, will he assure us that, not only will the process of government change, but that the Government will dump the unwanted, badly conceived proposals that lie at the heart of the political crisis facing the Government in Scotland?

Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way. On local government—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many conversations and interjections going on. The hon. Member who has the Floor is perfectly entitled to be heard.

Mr. McLeish: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Leader of the House should be aware that the Government's proposals on local government are not wanted. Will he reassure me that he will think not only about improving the government of Scotland at Westminster but that, when proposals are not only disliked but detested in Scotland, the Government will start to listen?
On the processing of decision making and the discussion of important measures in the House, why have the Government decided, behind closed doors, to close a significant economic unit called Rosyth? That is the point about tokenism and real decision making. The minor changes which the Secretary of State has announced to the Standing Orders will facilitate greater debate. He will agree that it is pointless to change how we debate issues if, on water, local government, the packing out of quangos by


Government placemen and issues such as Rosyth, we continue to be given proposals that Scots will not tolerate. That is reflected to a great extent in the Government's parliamentary and political unpopularity.
We believe that Scotland's interests can best be served in this century and into the next by a Scottish Parliament established in Edinburgh. In our attempts to ensure that the United Kingdom has a future, the first step should be to look at measures to introduce a Scottish Parliament. We have given the commitment repeatedly on the Floor of the House that, in the first year of a Labour Government, we shall legislate for a Scottish Parliament. That is what Scots want.
I hope that the Leader of the House will say that he regards the Standing Order changes as only a small first step and that the Government will start to embrace the real need for significant change. When we see the needs and aspirations of Scots going in tandem with the practical policies of the House, we shall regard that as a success, but at present we shall wait and see. Of course, we support the changes being made, but they are a very small step forward.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) started his speech by declining to describe the debate as interesting. As someone who does not have the privilege of attending such debates as frequently as he does, I found it extremely interesting. Indeed, it had a special flavour of its own which is rarely replicated in our proceedings in the House. I shall certainly hold it in my mind with the fascination that it deserves.
Apart from the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), with two honourable exceptions on the Opposition Benches, which I shall come to in a moment, I heard relatively few speeches which appeared to be other than loosely connected with the Standing Orders—athough I accept entirely that they were within the rules of order by definition. They appeared to have rather more to do with fighting longer-running battles—ineed, some of them were resolved at the last general election—which are in the minds of hon. Members in various parts of the House.
I said that there were two honourable exceptions. I would not want to let my short time disappear without making some response to the straightforward questions asked by the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised a number of points, including the seating arrangements for a Minister who is not a member of the Scottish Grand Committee. The provision is simply intended to make it clear that the Minister in question is not a member of the Committee and takes no part in its proceedings, beyond making his statement and answering questions. The seating arrangements will not prejudice his ability to respond to questions or make his statement; they are simply designed to emphasise that procedural point. I hope that that is reasonably clear.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned about the possibility, as he saw it, that the rules concerning the proposed short debates—an interesting and worthwhile innovation in my judgment—could crowd out Back Benchers. The fact is that the topics of the short debates will be determined by shuffle, like oral questions, so the Government or, indeed, the Labour Front Bench will have no control over the subject matter; it will be determined in the same way as for oral questions. While that will not guarantee the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to raise the subject of Lockerbie, it will certainly mean that he cannot be frustrated in such an intention or such a wish by either the Government or the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: I have only a few minutes and it would be right for me to respond to the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
As for the initiative in the selection of subjects for a statement by the Lord Advocate—another point raised by the hon. Gentleman—it would be up to the Lord Advocate or the Scottish Office Minister to volunteer a statement to the Committee. The Standing Orders do not provide for him to be summoned or compelled to make a statement on a particular topic, but that is no more than analogous with the position as it applies to the whole House or to Select Committees.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Scottish Grand Committee could ask to hear from Ministers other than those in the Crown Office or the Scottish Office. The answer—I say this straightforwardly—is no. The Standing Orders provide only for statements from Scottish Office Ministers or Scottish Law Officers, but of course there are opportunities in the House as a whole for the hon. Gentleman or anyone else to questions Ministers with United Kingdom responsibilities.

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving way.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked me some questions as well. In particular, he wanted to know whether the Committee would have the power to reject Scottish statutory instruments. Reference to the Scottish Grand Committee is a matter for the House, and the House takes the decision after the Grand Committee debate. That, too, is the same as current statutory instrument Committee procedures here.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow also asked about the position of Law Officers in the SGC or a Special Standing Committee. They can attend, under Standing Order No. 87, at present. They could appear as witnesses before a Special Standing Committee, by invitation and with their agreement, under the proposed new procedures. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
Where the Committee might meet elsewhere in Scotland would be decided on the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he would expect, on this as on many other matters, to consult—through the usual channels—others with an interest in the decision. The physical facilities would have a great deal to do with the decision.

It being Two hours after the motion was entered upon, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [8 July].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—

(a) Standing Orders No. 93 (Public bills relating exclusively to Scotland), No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee), No. 96 (Scottish estimates) and No. 97 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland) shall be repealed, and the following Standing Orders A to H below shall have effect;
(b) Standing Orders No. 13 (Arrangement of public business), No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 91 (Special standing committees) shall be amended as set out below; and
(c) other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.


A. Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)
(1) There shall be a standing committee called the Scottish Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing Scottish constituencies; and of which (subject to paragraph (6) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) the quorum shall be ten.
(2) The business of the Committee shall include—

(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order B (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));
(b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates));
(c) ministerial statements proceeded with in accordance with Standing Order D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements));
(d) bills referred to it for consideration in relation to their principle, in accordance with Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle));
(e) motions relating to statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments, referred to it in accordance with Standing Order F (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments, &c));
(f) motions for the adjournment of the committee, notice of which has been given in accordance with Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)); and
(g) motions for the adjournment of the committee, to be made after the interruption of business, as provided in Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)).


B. Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)
(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Scottish Grand Committee by Scottish Office ministers or Scottish law officers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall hear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Scottish Grand Committee.
(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.
(4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no question shall be taken later then three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.
(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired:
Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
C. Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)
(1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Scottish Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.

(2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to the official responsibilities of Scottish Office ministers or Scottish law officers.
(3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.
(4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.
(5)(a) No member of the committee except the minister or law officer replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.
(b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the minister or law officer replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other members of the committee may speak for three minutes.
(c) The chairman may direct any member of the committee who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.
(6) Notices of subjects under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:
Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
D. Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)
(1) The chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee may permit a Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer, whether or not a member of the committee, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.
(2) Ministerial statements may be made for the purpose of—

(a) facilitating the questioning by members of the committee of the minister or law officer, as the case may be, about a matter relating to his official responsibilities as provided in the second column of the eleventh sub-paragraph of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments), in which case proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion not later than three-quarters of an hour after their commencement; or
(b) announcing the policy of the Government on a matter relating to Scotland or the response of the Government to an event relating to Scotland, in which case proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.


(3) Ministerial statements may be made—

(a) at the commencement of a sitting; or
(b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or
(c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.


(4) A minister or law officer making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a member of the committee, may not do so from the body of the committee; and such a minister or law officer shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
E. Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)
(1) After any public bill has been first printed, the Speaker shall, if of the opinion that its provisions relate exclusively to Scotland, give a certificate to that effect:
Provided that a certificate shall not be withheld by reason only that a provision of that bill amends Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 or Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.
(2) On the order being read for the second reading of a bill so certified, a motion may be made by a member of the Government (or in the case of a private Members' bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee'; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business:
Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.
(3) A bill so referred to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the


bill in relation to its principle;' and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of two and half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman. shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:
Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above shall be ordered to be read a second time on a future day.
(5) On the order being read for the second reading of a bill to which paragraph (4) above applies, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or, in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee)': and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
(6) If a motion made under the preceding paragraph be agreed to, the bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time, and shall stand committed to a Scottish Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee).
F. Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments, &c.)
(1) Where—

(a) a Member has given notice of a motion for a humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or of a motion that a draft of an Order in Council be not submitted to Her Majesty in Council, or that a statutory instrument be revoked or be not made, or that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or
(b) a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument be approved,

a motion may be made by a member of the government, 'That the instrument (or draft instrument) be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee'; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
(2) The committee shall consider each instrument (or draft instrument) referred to it on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the instrument (or draft instrument)'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the motion, if not previously disposed of, not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; and shall thereupon report the instrument or draft instrument to the House without any further question being put.
(3) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraph 1(a) or 1(b) of this order, in relation to any instrument or draft instrument in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (2) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon; which may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
G. Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)
(1) On each of the days specified in an order of the House under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the Scottish Grand Committee, such motions of which notice has been given in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) below shall have precedence.
(2) A member of the committee giving notice of a motion for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall—

(a) also give notice of the subject to which he intends to call attention on the motion for the adjournment of the committee, and
(b) give such notice of motion and of the subject in writing not later than ten sitting days before that on which the motion is to be made:

Provided that the subject to which attention is called must relate to Scotland.

(3) The days specified for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall be allocated as follows—

(a) six at the disposal of the government;
(b) four at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition; and, in respect of parties other than that of the Leader of the Opposition,
(c) one at the disposal of the leader of the largest opposition party; and
(d) one at the disposal of the leader of the next largest opposition party:

Provided that a day specified in an order of the House under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) on which business is to be interrupted at or after half-past three o'clock shall, if no business other than that to which this order applies is set down for consideration on that day, be deemed to be two days for the purposes of this order.
(4) For the purposes of this order, the 'largest' and 'next largest' opposition parties in Scotland shall be those parties, not being represented in Her Majesty's Government and of which the Leader of the Opposition is not a member, which have the largest and next largest number of Members who represent constituencies in Scotland, and of which not fewer than three Members were elected to the House as members of those parties.
H. Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)
(1) A motion may be made by a member of the government providing (or varying previous provision) for the Scottish Grand Committee—

(a) to sit on specified days at a specified place in Scotland, the sitting commencing at half-past ten o'clock, and proceedings being interrupted at such hour as may be specified;
(b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at half-past ten o'clock;
(c) to take questions under Standing Order B (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above;
(d) to hold short debates under Standing Order C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified; and
(e) to consider substantive motions for the adjournment of the committee under Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) on not more than twelve of the days so specified.

and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided after the time for opposed business:
Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Scotland, nor from considering at a sitting in Scotland business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.
(2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Scottish Grand Committee.
(3) Other than as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)), the government shall determine the precedence of the business appointed for consideration at any sitting of the committee.
(4) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above, or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).
(5) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned (except substantive motions for the adjournment of the committee under Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) which shall lapse).
(6) After the interruption of proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a member of the government, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made,


adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.
That Standing Orders be amended as follows—
(i) Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business), by adding at the end of line 91 the words—
(11) A private Member's bill to which the provisions of paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) have applied, and which has been considered by a Scottish Standing Committee (or by a special standing committee), shall not be set down for consideration on report so as to have precedence over any private Member's bill so set down which was read a second time on a day preceding that on which the bill was reported from the Scottish Grand Committee under paragraph (3) of that Standing Order";
(ii) Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees), in line 1, by leaving out the words "Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee)" and inserting the words "Standing Order A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business))"; and
(iii) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees), by inserting at the end of line 13 the words—
Provided that, in the case of bills certified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) and committed pursuant to paragraph (5) thereof to a special standing committee, the three morning sittings may be held in Scotland".

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That—
(1) at the sitting on Tuesday 12th July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Procedure, and Mr. Colin Shepherd relating to Catering, respectively, not later than one and a half hours after each such Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock; and
(2) at the sitting on Wednesday 13th July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Members' Allowances and Members' Interests, respectively, one and a half hours after each such Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock; and
(3) at the sitting on Thursday 14th July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mrs.Gillian Shephard relating to the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994 not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS

Ordered,
That the Order [4th March] relating to private Members' notices of motions shall have effect as if for '22nd July' in line 4 there were substituted '21st October'; that the Member; who were successful in the ballot held on 6th July for 22nd July shall be deemed to have precedence in the same order for 21st October; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 13(9), notices of subjects to be raised on 21st October may be given at the Table or in the Table Office not later than 21st July.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Orders of the Day — Director General of Gas Supply

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

12 midnight

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I wish to use the opportunity of the Adjournment debate this evening to question the appointment, and the practices used in the appointment, of the Director General of Gas Supply.
Regulation and regulators are of growing importance in our lives, particularly when a state-owned utility has been turned into a private monopoly. Such is the case with the gas industry. If regulation is to work, it is essential not only that regulators operate within clear legislative guidelines in a manner that is open and understood; it is also essential that they be appointed in a fashion that establishes their integrity and their independence from political and Whitehall control, and that the persons appointed have the qualifications required to command respect within an industry.
In respect of the Director General of Gas Supply, the criteria called for a person with a reputation for fairness, discretion and independence, with good negotiating skills and the ability to understand complex legal issues. The documentation issued at the time also stated:
Candidates will probably have substantial experience of dealing with competition issues in a business environment".
Moreover, any connections that they had with the gas industry were to be disclosed.
I have been assured by the Minister that the integrity of the appointments process was assured by the involvement of outside executive search consultants. We are, of course, expected to be further reassured by the fact that the entire process was overseen by our reliable, safe civil service system.
What actually happened was far from any ideal. The executive agency involvement gives us no reassurance, as it has been established that it did not head-hunt the successful candidate; rather, she sought out the agency. According to Ms Spottiswoode, having heard that Saxton Bampfylde procured interesting jobs, she phoned it up one Friday night, to learn that the agency was enthusiastic about her and had the ideal job. This enthusiasm was supposed to have been based on her public sector background, combined with her entrepreneurial skills.
The telephone call must have been a happy coincidence for Saxton Bampfylde, because at the time it had already submitted a short list for the job which had been rejected by the Department of Trade and Industry, for reasons that it has yet to explain. Ms Spottiswoode's name was in any case promptly added to the list. [Interruption.]
That unusual occurrence, which the Minister will have an opportunity to deny if he wishes, would be nothing more than that if it were not combined with the fact, which came to light, that the civil servant in charge of the appointment process had known the successful candidate for some years. I am talking about Mr. John Michell, who had worked with the director general at the Treasury some years before. As far as we are aware, he declared that fact to nobody, but he participated in the appointment process.
Ms Spottiswoode's explanation has been that she hardly knew him: she recognised him, but would not have done so in a crowd. We do not know whether that is the case, but we do know that they recognised each other and did not


declare that. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that they did, and that he had some reason to overrule the declaration and allow the appointment process to continue.
I shall now deal with connections to the gas industry. It seems that a gas consultancy called Economatters, which likes to be known as "the insider's consultancy", lent a hand to the job applicant. First, individual, one-to-one tuition was given, and then a place on a training course costing £2,200 was provided. The same consultancy printed in its May 1994 magazine the most astonishing tirade against members of the Select Committee on the Environment for daring to question Ms Spottiswoode's competence, and her "year zero" approach to her job.
I have had three different versions of who paid for the training. First, I was told that the Department of Trade and Industry paid for it, although I think that that has been denied. Perhaps the Minister will clear that up. When I asked whether any of the pre-appointment training had been paid for by his Department, I was told that it was not asked to contribute to the cost. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the Department made any contribution to that training.
Secondly, I was told that Ofgas paid for the training. I would find that remarkable, because no appointment had been made at the time. Thirdly, I was told that there was no charge, but that would be a little astonishing, because it would hardly enhance the standing of the new Director General of Gas Supply as independent.
Training was absolutely necessary, as the candidate did not know anything at all about the industry of which she was applying to be the regulator. I have a quote which proves that. It states:
I went to university in the 1970s when people were concerned about oil and gas running out and one of the first things I did actually before I took the job was ask a lot of people about resources. I was quite surprised that actually there are a lot of resources left.
That displays a Daily Mail understanding of the gas and oil industry, if ever there was one.
Secondly, the fact has come to light that the obliging "insider's consultancy" is chaired by none other than the uncle of the Director General of Gas Supply. Was all that known by the DTI at the time of the appointment? Most particularly, did it know about the lack of knowledge of the industry, and who paid for the pre-appointment training? Did the DTI have any role in that, or did Ofgas, or was it provided free? Some clear answers on those issues would be helpful.
Throughout the controversy over this appointment, we have been treated to one overriding defence, which has been repeated ad nauseam. It is that Ms Spottiswoode was appointed because of her unique combination of public sector knowledge and entrepreneurial skills. That is what was supposed to have made her attractive to the headhunter. That is what is used as a substitute for the requirement in the job application papers to have
substantial experience of competition issues in a business environment.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Listening to my hon. Friend, it is not strange that a question mark hangs over the appointment, its terms of reference and the qualifications necessary, because it appears that the appointee did not understand the job to which she was appointed.

Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes his point well. It clearly relates to the training that took place—out of necessity, I believe—at somebody's expense. The Minister owes us an explanation of that tonight. The basic ability to do the job to which the director general has been appointed is under question.
The overriding excuse used for the appointment is the director general's supposed entrepreneurial skills combined with a public sector background. What exactly are her entrepreneurial skills? They appear to be, first, to have worked with a neighbour at a part-time silk importing operation, which was, we are told, sold for £30,000; and secondly, to have been a partner and director in a software company called Spottiswoode and Spottiswoode, where she gave up her directorship only months before the company went into a creditors voluntary liquidation owing £600,000 to creditors in October 1991. That appears to be the entrepreneurial experience used to justify the appointment.
What do we have? Our gas industry appears to be regulated by a failed entrepreneur who knew nothing about the industry at the time of her appointment; who has developed a close working relationship with the civil servant who helped to appoint her and did not declare that he knew her when he did; who has slandered her predecessor; who has displayed a Pol Pot-like "year zero" approach to her powers and responsibilities; and who has, with regard to the funding of the Energy Saving Trust, displayed a total inability to understand basic legal advice.
She has private advice sessions with senior Tory politicians on how to deal with the Environment Select Committee. According to its Chairman, she has driven a coach and horses through the entire energy strategy of the United Kingdom. Surely, in those circumstances, we are entitled to some explanation of the justification and reasons for the appointment, whether the appointment continues to be appropriate, and whether the individual concerned should continue in her post.
I believe that there is justification for a full and open inquiry into the appointment, and that is what I am calling for now. In conjunction with that, and with regard to the bigger issue of regulators, if the system is not to fall into total and absolute disrepute because of the way that it is being used and abused by the Government, as shown in this example, we need a proper commission to look into the appointment, the accountability and the role of regulators. That is needed if any credibility is to be brought back to the system.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is conventional to congratulate an hon. Member on his success in the ballot and on raising an important issue in an Adjournment debate. While it is absolutely right that important matters such as the appointment of regulators are raised on the Floor of the House—I have no complaint about that—hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Ainsworth) is thoroughly ashamed of himself for the way in which he has done so. It does no credit either to the House or to the hon. Gentleman to enter into an attempted attack on an individual using the privileges of the House in the way that he has done.
The hon. Member made a number of misleading and inaccurate accusations this evening, as he has done on previous occasions. I hope that, when he has been in the


House a little longer, he will recognise that is not the way to create a reputation for himself or to enhance the reputation of the House.
I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to put on record the background to the appointment of Ms Spottiswoode. The previous director general, Sir James McKinnon, announced in February 1993 that he intended to take early retirement at the end of October 1993, rather than in August 1994, when his second term of office expired. Sir James felt that it would be more appropriate for a new director general to implement the possibly far-reaching recommendations of the year-long Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into British Gas.
In March 1993, the decision was taken to employ executive search consultants, or head hunters. Following normal departmental practice, a number of executive search consultants were invited to apply, and at the beginning of May, Saxton Bampfylde International. Ltd. was chosen on the basis of a competitive tender. Saxton Bampfylde had considerable experience in regulatory appointments. It was briefed by Department of Trade and Industry officials, by Sir James on the day-to-day requirements of his job, and by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself.
As the hon. Member knows, we placed a copy of the full terms of reference in the Library. I do not intend to repeat tonight the full terms of the remit that we gave the head hunters or the contents of the public advertisement that appeared in mid-June, but it may be helpful to comment on the main features.
We were looking for someone with experience of managing a business at senior level, who understood competition in practice, in tune with the way in which markets operate, and with a feel for the ways in which the proper functioning of competitive markets can be obstructed or distorted.
We were looking for someone who could back up that practical experience with proven qualities of business and policy analysis, and a capability to deal with complex issues involving economics and accountancy. We were looking also for someone with the personal qualities to command the industry's full confidence and who could reach fair and firm decisions that would withstand detailed scrutiny. We made it clear that that called for thoroughness, discretion, independence, an ability to negotiate toughly and to take a firm stand when necessary, and good presentational skills.
The post was advertised in mid-May, and in the following days and weeks, Saxton approached nearly 200 sources and potential candidates. In mid-June, those candidates were whittled down to a long list of 20, whose qualifications were discussed with DTI officials. In the light of that, and after further research, Saxton came forward in early July with a short list of six candidates—one of whom withdrew his name shortly after. That list included the name of Ms Spottiswoode.
As a preliminary stage, and as usual, each of the five candidates was interviewed by two of my officials—Mr. John Michell, head of the Department of Trade and Industry's oil and gas division, and Mr. Mike Atkinson, head of the branch dealing with gas policy. Those interviews provided an opportunity for candidates to explore the requirements of the job and the main issues that were likely to arise.
Unusually, I decided to interview all five candidates. I

say "unusually" because the normal procedure is that the Minister interviews either two or three candidates, officials having done the preliminary sifting of the short list. During those interviews, I had an opportunity to discuss with the candidates our policy for opening up the gas market to competition, and to form a view of how each candidate measured up to the criteria that I have outlined.
Having considered all that, and having interviewed each candidate most carefully, I concluded that Ms Spottiswoode was the best candidate. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade concurred with my judgment, although he was unable to interview the candidates as had originally been planned because of his illness.
Following discussion of the terms of the appointment, I announced on 24 September that Ms Spottiswoode would join Ofgas on 1 October as director general designate, and would take over from Sir James McKinnon on 1 November. That was deliberately designed to allow a short hand-over period, to enable Ms Spottiswoode to familiarise herself more fully with the industry.
Ms Spottiswoode took up her appointment in the midst of the consultation process, following the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. The period since then has seen many decisions on a variety of aspects of the gas sector. There is no doubt that it has been a very challenging period for all concerned.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the training course on the gas industry that Ms Spottiswoode attended in September 1993, before she took up her post, and to her uncle's involvement in the company that ran the course. We were aware of that beforehand, and also of her uncle's involvement with the gas industry in New Zealand.
The course that the hon. Gentleman referred to was run by Alphatania—a company owned by Jonathan Sterne, James Ball and David Spottiswoode. The company was established in June 1986 and has been running courses for the gas industry since. Two other members of Ofgas had attended the course in previous years. Alphatania had dealings with Ofgas, therefore, long before Ms Spottiswoode applied for the post of director general. She attended the course, which is run for people with a high degree of economics understanding.
My Department was aware of her intention to attend the course, but was not asked to contribute to the cost. I understand that it was paid for by Ofgas, subsequent to Ms Spottiswoode accepting the post of director general.
The hon. Gentleman asked—not in his remarks tonight, but certainly in his remarks to the press—whether the Government's environmental policy, in particular the E factor, was mentioned during the interviews with Ms Spottiswoode. He asked that question with the benefit of hindsight.
At the time of the interviews, the key issue was the MMC report on British Gas, which was about to be published. There had been much speculation on its content. The most challenging issue, which was at the top of everyone's agenda, was the way forward for the gas industry. Another issue, which some candidates, including Ms Spottiswoode, raised, was British Gas's social obligations in a liberalised market—for example, its obligations towards the elderly and those who were unable to pay their bills. That area represents significant costs—£23 million for the elderly and disabled, and about £43 million for customers with payment difficulties.
The E factor was not raised by any of the candidates: it was simply not a live issue. The sums involved were small—

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: No.
Compared with the cost of the social obligations that I mentioned, E-factor spending was running at only £0.5 million a year. Against that background, it is hardly surprising that none of the candidates raised the question of environmental spending with us—and, even if our side had raised it, there is little that any candidate could have said at the time except that, if appointed, he or she would examine the matter in the light of the legal advice offered—

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East. He did not give way to me when I tried to intervene.

Mr. Cunningham: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) must be aware that an Adjournment debate takes place essentially between the hon. Member who initiated it and the Minister who answers.

Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister has just claimed that I did not give way to him, and has used that claim as an excuse for not giving way to me. As far as I am aware, I was not asked to give way, and I therefore did not do so. The Minister is misleading the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not an appropriate phrase for the hon. Gentleman to use; I hope that he will reconsider.

Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister is misleading the House. He just said—you heard him, Madam Deputy Speaker—that I had refused to give way to him, which I clearly did not do.

Mr. Eggar: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read Hansard. I think he will find that the record shows that he said something along the lines of "The Minister will have a chance to make his own speech in due course." I took that as a clear indication that the hon. Gentleman was not going to give way to me. I am sorry if he meant what he said in any other sense, but I really do not think that I could possibly have misconstrued his words. I suggest that he read the record: I think that he will then appreciate the reasons for my previous remark.
The hon. Gentleman has made all sorts of accusations, both tonight and earlier, about the acquaintance between Ms Spottiswoode and Mr. John Michell. The position is

this: Clare Spottiswoode and John Michell—who is now head of the DTI's oil and gas division—worked at the same time in different divisions of the Treasury in the late 1970s. They did not at that time work together on any issues, and were only very slightly acquainted. They had no contact whatever between the late 1970s and 1993.
I understand that, when Ms Spottiswoode's name was put forward by the head hunters engaged by the Department to advise it on the DGGS post, Mr. Michell recognised the name as that of a former Treasury colleague. He mentioned that to me during my consideration of the appointment. I also understand that some of the other names on the early lists suggested by the head hunters were known to Mr. Michell, including at least one other former Treasury colleague.
Such acquaintanceships are very likely to occur in such circumstances, and I see nothing irregular or untoward about it. The fact of the former acquaintanceship between Ms Spottiswoode and Mr. Michell made no difference whatever to my consideration of the shortlisted candidates for the DGGS post.
The hon. Gentleman's description of the way in which the candidates were chosen and put forward by Saxton Bampfylde bears absolutely no relation to what actually happened. I hope that, when he has read carefully what I have said this evening, he will write not only to me but to Mr. Michell and Ms Spottiswoode to apologise for his accusations.
I believe that Ms Spottiswoode has shown the fairness and firmness for which we looked when making the appointment. That is not to say that her judgments have always been popular with the industry, interest groups or all hon. Members, but no one should be alarmed about that. As the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks, it is the independence of the regulator that matters above all else, and the director general has shown a readiness to take an independent line, and does so when she believes that it is required by the statutory duty under which she operates.
Having said that, I am more than a little surprised when I read that Ms Spottiswoode is accused of being too close to the industry and, at the same time, to the Government. She was appointed for her independence—a fact recognised by the hon. Gentleman.
I welcome the opportunity to put on record the process by which the director general is appointed. I am absolutely satisfied that the appointment was carefully and properly made at all stages. I am also satisfied that we chose the right person for the job.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Twelve midnight.